PMCC PMCC

Search tips
Search criteria

Advanced
Results 1-25 (902095)

Clipboard (0)
None

Related Articles

1.  Low revision rate after total hip arthroplasty in patients with pediatric hip diseases 
Acta Orthopaedica  2012;83(5):436-441.
Background
The results of primary total hip arthroplasties (THAs) after pediatric hip diseases such as developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH), slipped capital femoral epiphysis (SCFE), or Perthes’ disease have been reported to be inferior to the results after primary osteoarthritis of the hip (OA).
Materials and methods
We compared the survival of primary THAs performed during the period 1995–2009 due to previous DDH, SCFE, Perthes’ disease, or primary OA, using merged individual-based data from the Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish arthroplasty registers, called the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA). Cox multiple regression, with adjustment for age, sex, and type of fixation of the prosthesis was used to calculate the survival of the prostheses and the relative revision risks.
Results
370,630 primary THAs were reported to these national registers for 1995–2009. Of these, 14,403 THAs (3.9%) were operated due to pediatric hip diseases (3.1% for Denmark, 8.8% for Norway, and 1.9% for Sweden) and 288,435 THAs (77.8%) were operated due to OA. Unadjusted 10-year Kaplan-Meier survival of THAs after pediatric hip diseases (94.7% survival) was inferior to that after OA (96.6% survival). Consequently, an increased risk of revision for hips with a previous pediatric hip disease was seen (risk ratio (RR) 1.4, 95% CI: 1.3–1.5). However, after adjustment for differences in sex and age of the patients, and in fixation of the prostheses, no difference in survival was found (93.6% after pediatric hip diseases and 93.8% after OA) (RR 1.0, CI: 1.0–1.1). Nevertheless, during the first 6 postoperative months more revisions were reported for THAs secondary to pediatric hip diseases (RR 1.2, CI: 1.0–1.5), mainly due to there being more revisions for dislocations (RR 1.8, CI: 1.4–2.3). Comparison between the different diagnosis groups showed that the overall risk of revision after DDH was higher than after OA (RR 1.1, CI: 1.0–1.2), whereas the combined group Perthes’ disease/SCFE did not have a significantly different risk of revision to that of OA (RR 0.9, CI: 0.7–1.0), but had a lower risk than after DDH (RR 0.8, CI: 0.7–1.0).
Interpretation
After adjustment for differences in age, sex, and type of fixation of the prosthesis, no difference in risk of revision was found for primary THAs performed due to pediatric hip diseases and those performed due to primary OA.
doi:10.3109/17453674.2012.736171
PMCID: PMC3488168  PMID: 23043269
2.  Increased risk of revision in patients with non-traumatic femoral head necrosis 
Acta Orthopaedica  2014;85(1):11-17.
Background and purpose
Previous studies of patients who have undergone total hip arthroplasty (THA) due to femoral head necrosis (FHN) have shown an increased risk of revision compared to cases with primary osteoarthritis (POA), but recent studies have suggested that this procedure is not associated with poor outcome. We compared the risk of revision after operation with THA due to FHN or POA in the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA) database including Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden.
Patients and methods
427,806 THAs performed between 1995 and 2011 were included. The relative risk of revision for any reason, for aseptic loosening, dislocation, deep infection, and periprosthetic fracture was studied before and after adjustment for covariates using Cox regression models.
Results
416,217 hips with POA (mean age 69 (SD 10), 59% females) and 11,589 with FHN (mean age 65 (SD 16), 58% females) were registered. The mean follow-up was 6.3 (SD 4.3) years. After 2 years of observation, 1.7% in the POA group and 3.0% in the FHN group had been revised. The corresponding proportions after 16 years of observation were 4.2% and 6.1%, respectively. The 16-year survival in the 2 groups was 86% (95% CI: 86–86) and 77% (CI: 74–80). After adjusting for covariates, the relative risk (RR) of revision for any reason was higher in patients with FHN for both periods studied (up to 2 years: RR = 1.44, 95% CI: 1.34–1.54; p < 0.001; and 2–16 years: RR = 1.25, 1.14–1.38; p < 0.001).
Interpretation
Patients with FHN had an overall increased risk of revision. This increased risk persisted over the entire period of observation and covered more or less all of the 4 most common reasons for revision.
doi:10.3109/17453674.2013.874927
PMCID: PMC3940986  PMID: 24359026
3.  Risk factors for revision due to infection after primary total hip arthroplasty 
Acta Orthopaedica  2010;81(5):542-547.
Background and purpose
There has been a limited amount of research on risk factors for revision due to infection following total hip arthroplasty (THA), probably due to low absolute numbers of revisions. We therefore studied patient- and surgery-related risk factors for revision due to infection after primary THA in a population-based setting.
Materials and methods
Using the Danish Hip Arthroplasty Registry, we identified 80,756 primary THAs performed in Denmark between Jan 1, 1995 and Dec 31, 2008. We used Cox regression analysis to compute crude and adjusted relative risk (RR) of revision due to infection. Revision was defined as extraction or exchange of any component due to infection. The median follow-up time was 5 (0–14) years.
Results
597 primary THAs (0.7%) were revised due to infection. Males, patients with any co-morbidity, patients operated due to non-traumatic avascular femoral head necrosis, and patients with long duration of surgery had an increased RR of revision due to infection within the total follow-up time. A tendency of increased RR of revision was found for patients who had received cemented THA without antibiotic and hybrid THA relative to patients with cementless implants. Hip diagnosis and fixation technique were not associated with risk of revision due to infection within 1 year of surgery (short-term risk).
Interpretation
We identified several categories of THA patients who had a higher risk of revision due to infection. Further research is required to explain the mechanism underlying this increased risk. More attention should be paid by clinicians to infection prevention strategies in patients with THA, particularly those with increased risk.
doi:10.3109/17453674.2010.519908
PMCID: PMC3214741  PMID: 20860453
4.  Inferior outcome after hip resurfacing arthroplasty than after conventional arthroplasty 
Acta Orthopaedica  2010;81(5):535-541.
Background and purpose
The reported outcomes of hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) vary. The frequency of this procedure in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden is low. We therefore determined the outcome of HRA in the NARA database, which is common to all 3 countries, and compared it to the outcome of conventional total hip arthroplasty (THA).
Methods
The risk of non-septic revision within 2 years was analyzed in 1,638 HRAs and compared to that for 172,554 conventional total hip arthroplasties (THAs), using Cox regression models. We calculated relative risk (RR) of revision and 95% confidence interval.
Results
HRA had an almost 3-fold increased revision risk compared to THA (RR = 2.7, 95% CI: 1.9–3.7). The difference was even greater when HRA was compared to the THA subgroup of cemented THAs (RR = 3.8, CI: 2.7–5.3). For men below 50 years of age, this difference was less pronounced (HRA vs. THA: RR = 1.9, CI: 1.0–3.9; HRA vs. cemented THA: RR = 2.4, CI: 1.1–5.3), but it was even more pronounced in women of the same age group (HRA vs. THA: RR = 4.7, CI: 2.6–8.5; HRA vs. cemented THA: RR = 7.4, CI: 3.7–15). Within the HRA group, risk of non-septic revision was reduced in hospitals performing ≥ 70 HRAs annually (RR = 0.3, CI: 0.1–0.7) and with use of Birmingham hip resurfacing (BHR) rather than the other designs as a group (RR = 0.3, CI: 0.1–0.7). Risk of early revision was also reduced in males (RR = 0.5, CI: 0.2–0.9). The femoral head diameter alone had no statistically significant influence on the early revision rate, but it eliminated the significance of male sex in a combined analysis.
Interpretation
In general, our results do not support continued use of hip resurfacing arthroplasty. Men had a lower early revision rate, which was still higher than observed for all-cemented hips. Further follow-up is necessary to determine whether HRA might be useful as an alternative in males.
doi:10.3109/17453674.2010.525193
PMCID: PMC3214740  PMID: 20919812
5.  Countrywise results of total hip replacement 
Acta Orthopaedica  2014;85(2):107-116.
Background and purpose
An earlier Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA) report on 280,201 total hip replacements (THRs) based on data from 1995–2006, from Sweden, Norway, and Denmark, was published in 2009. The present study assessed THR survival according to country, based on the NARA database with the Finnish data included.
Material and methods
438,733 THRs performed during the period 1995–2011 in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and Finland were included. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to calculate survival probabilities with 95% confidence interval (CI). Cox multiple regression, with adjustment for age, sex, and diagnosis, was used to analyze implant survival with revision for any reason as endpoint.
Results
The 15-year survival, with any revision as an endpoint, for all THRs was 86% (CI: 85.7–86.9) in Denmark, 88% (CI: 87.6–88.3) in Sweden, 87% (CI: 86.4–87.4) in Norway, and 84% (CI: 82.9–84.1) in Finland. Revision risk for all THRs was less in Sweden than in the 3 other countries during the first 5 years. However, revision risk for uncemented THR was less in Denmark than in Sweden during the sixth (HR = 0.53, CI: 0.34–0.82), seventh (HR = 0.60, CI: 0.37–0.97), and ninth (HR = 0.59, CI: 0.36–0.98) year of follow-up.
Interpretation
The differences in THR survival rates were considerable, with inferior results in Finland. Brand-level comparison of THRs in Nordic countries will be required.
doi:10.3109/17453674.2014.893498
PMCID: PMC3967250  PMID: 24650019
6.  Infection after primary hip arthroplasty 
Acta Orthopaedica  2011;82(6):646-654.
Background and purpose
The aim of the present study was to assess incidence of and risk factors for infection after hip arthroplasty in data from 3 national health registries. We investigated differences in risk patterns between surgical site infection (SSI) and revision due to infection after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) and hemiarthroplasty (HA).
Materials and methods
This observational study was based on prospective data from 2005–2009 on primary THAs and HAs from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register (NAR), the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register (NHFR), and the Norwegian Surveillance System for Healthcare–Associated Infections (NOIS). The Norwegian Patient Register (NPR) was used for evaluation of case reporting. Cox regression analyses were performed with revision due to infection as endpoint for data from the NAR and the NHFR, and with SSI as the endpoint for data from the NOIS.
Results
The 1–year incidence of SSI in the NOIS was 3.0% after THA (167/5,540) and 7.3% after HA (103/1,416). The 1–year incidence of revision due to infection was 0.7% for THAs in the NAR (182/24,512) and 1.5% for HAs in the NHFR (128/8,262). Risk factors for SSI after THA were advanced age, ASA class higher than 2, and short duration of surgery. For THA, the risk factors for revision due to infection were male sex, advanced age, ASA class higher than 1, emergency surgery, uncemented fixation, and a National Nosocomial Infection Surveillance (NNIS) risk index of 2 or more. For HAs inserted after fracture, age less than 60 and short duration of surgery were risk factors of revision due to infection.
Interpretation
The incidences of SSI and revision due to infection after primary hip replacements in Norway are similar to those in other countries. There may be differences in risk pattern between SSI and revision due to infection after arthroplasty. The risk patterns for revision due to infection appear to be different for HA and THA.
doi:10.3109/17453674.2011.636671
PMCID: PMC3247879  PMID: 22066562
7.  Effects of hydroxyapatite coating of cups used in hip revision arthroplasty 
Acta Orthopaedica  2012;83(5):427-435.
Background and purpose
Coating of acetabular revision implants with hydroxyapatite (HA) has been proposed to improve ingrowth and stability. We investigated whether HA coating of revision cups can reduce the risk of any subsequent re-revision.
Methods
We studied uncemented cups either with or without HA coating that were used at a primary acetabular revision and registered in the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register (SHAR). 2 such cup designs were identified: Harris-Galante and Trilogy, both available either with or without HA coating. These cups had been used as revision components in 1,780 revisions of total hip arthroplasties (THA) between 1986 and 2009. A Cox proportional hazards model including the type of coating, age at index revision, sex, cause of cup revision, cup design, the use of bone graft at the revision procedure, and the type of cup fixation at primary THA were used to calculate adjusted risk ratios (RRs with 95% CI) for re-revision for any reason or due to aseptic loosening.
Results
71% of the cups were coated with HA and 29% were uncoated. At a mean follow-up time of 6.9 (0–24) years, 159 (9%) of all 1,780 cups had been re-revised, mostly due to aseptic loosening (5%), dislocation (2%), or deep infection (1%). HA coating had no significant influence on the risk of re-revision of the cup for any reason (RR = 1.4, CI: 0.9–2.0) or due to aseptic loosening (RR = 1.1, 0.6–1.9). In contrast, HA coating was found to be a risk factor for isolated liner re-revision for any reason (RR = 1.8, CI: 1.01–3.3). Age below 60 years at the index cup revision, dislocation as the cause of the index cup revision, uncemented cup fixation at primary THA, and use of the Harris-Galante cup also increased the risk of re-revision of the cup. In separate analyses in which isolated liner revisions were excluded, bone grafting was found to be a risk factor for re-revision of the metal shell due to aseptic loosening (RR = 2.1, CI: 1.05–4.2).
Interpretation
We found no evidence to support the notion that HA coating improves the performance of the 2 studied cup designs in revision arthroplasty. In contrast, patient-related factors such as younger age and dislocation as the reason for cup revision, and technical factors such as the choice of revision cup were found to influence the risk of subsequent re-revision of the cup. The reason for inferior results after revision of uncemented cups is not known, but it is possible that these hips more often had pronounced bone loss at the index cup revision.
doi:10.3109/17453674.2012.720117
PMCID: PMC3488167  PMID: 22937978
8.  Uncemented and cemented primary total hip arthroplasty in the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register 
Acta Orthopaedica  2010;81(1):34-41.
Background and purpose
Since the introduction of total hip arthroplasty (THA) in Sweden, both components have most commonly been cemented. A decade ago the frequency of uncemented fixation started to increase, and this change in practice has continued. We therefore analyzed implant survival of cemented and uncemented THA, and whether the modes of failure differ between the two methods of fixation.
Patients and methods
All patients registered in the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register between 1992 and 2007 who received either totally cemented or totally uncemented THA were identified (n = 170,413). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis with revision of any component, and for any reason, as the endpoints was performed. Cox regression models were used to calculate risk ratios (RRs) for revision for various reasons, adjusted for sex, age, and primary diagnosis.
Results
Revision-free 10-year survival of uncemented THA was lower than that of cemented THA (85% vs. 94%, p < 0.001). No age or diagnosis groups benefited from the use of uncemented fixation. Cox regression analysis confirmed that uncemented THA had a higher risk of revision for any reason (RR = 1.5, 95% CI: 1.4–1.6) and for aseptic loosening (RR = 1.5, CI: 1.3–1.6). Uncemented cup components had a higher risk of cup revision due to aseptic loosening (RR = 1.8, CI: 1.6–2.0), whereas uncemented stem components had a lower risk of stem revision due to aseptic loosening (RR = 0.4, CI: 0.3–0.5) when compared to cemented components. Uncemented stems were more frequently revised due to periprosthetic fracture during the first 2 postoperative years than cemented stems (RR = 8, CI: 5–14). The 5 most common uncemented cups had no increased risk of revision for any reason when compared with the 5 most commonly used cemented cups (RR = 0.9, CI: 0.6–1.1). There was no significant difference in the risk of revision due to infection between cemented and uncemented THA.
Interpretation
Survival of uncemented THA is inferior to that of cemented THA, and this appears to be mainly related to poorer performance of uncemented cups. Uncemented stems perform better than cemented stems; however, unrecognized intraoperative femoral fractures may be an important reason for early failure of uncemented stems. The risk of revision of the most common uncemented cup designs is similar to that of cemented cups, indicating that some of the problems with uncemented cup fixation may have been solved.
doi:10.3109/17453671003685400
PMCID: PMC2856202  PMID: 20180715
9.  Surgical procedures in the treatment of 784 infected THAs reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register 
Acta Orthopaedica  2011;82(5):530-537.
Background and purpose
Controversies still exist regarding the best surgical procedure in the treatment of periprosthetic infection after total hip arthroplasty (THA). Based on data in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register (NAR), we have compared the risk of re-revision after 4 different surgical procedures: 2-stage with exchange of the whole prosthesis, 1-stage with exchange of the whole prosthesis, major partial 1-stage with exchange of stem or cup, and minor partial 1-stage with exchange of femoral head and/or acetabular liner.
Methods
Between 1987 and 2009, 124,759 primary THAs were reported to the NAR, of which 906 (0.7%) were revised due to infection. Included in this study were the 784 revisions that had been performed by 1 of the 4 different surgical procedures. Cox-estimated survival and relative revision risks are presented with adjustment for differences among groups regarding gender, type of fixation, type of prosthesis, and age at revision.
Results
2-stage procedures were used in 283 revisions (36%), 1-stage in 192 revisions (25%), major partial in 129 revisions (17%), and minor partial in 180 revisions (23%). 2-year Kaplan-Meier survival for all revisions was 83%; it was 92% for those re-revised by 2-stage exchange procedure, 88% for those re-revised by 1-stage exchange procedure, 66% for those re-revised by major partial exchange procedure, and it was 76% for those re-revised by minor partial exchange. Compared to the 2-stage procedure and with any reason for revision as endpoint (180 re-revisions), the risk of re-revision increased 1.4 times for 1-stage (p = 0.2), 4.1 times for major partial exchange (p < 0.001), and 1.5 times for minor partial exchange (p = 0.1). With infection as the endpoint (108 re-revisions), the risk of re-revision increased 2.0 times for 1-stage exchange (p = 0.04), 6.0 times for major partial exchange (p < 0.001), and 2.3 times for minor partial exchange (p = 0.02). Similar results were found when the analyses were restricted to the period 2002–2009.
Interpretation
In the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register, the survival after revision of infected primary THA with 2-stage implant exchange was slightly superior to that for 1-stage exchange of the whole prosthesis. This result is noteworthy, since 2-stage procedures are often used with the most severe infections. However, debridement with exchange of head and/or liner but with retention of the fixed implant (minor revision) meant that there was a 76% chance of not being re-revised within 2 years.
doi:10.3109/17453674.2011.623572
PMCID: PMC3242948  PMID: 21992085
10.  Increasing risk of revision due to deep infection after hip arthroplasty 
Acta Orthopaedica  2009;80(6):639-645.
Background and purpose Over the decades, improvements in surgery and perioperative routines have reduced the incidence of deep infections after total hip arthroplasty (THA). There is, however, some evidence to suggest that the incidence of infection is increasing again. We assessed the risk of revision due to deep infection for primary THAs reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register (NAR) over the period 1987–2007.
Method We included all primary cemented and uncemented THAs reported to the NAR from September 15, 1987 to January 1, 2008 and performed adjusted Cox regression analyses with the first revision due to deep infection as endpoint. Changes in revision rate as a function of the year of operation were investigated.
Results Of the 97,344 primary THAs that met the inclusion criteria, 614 THAs had been revised due to deep infection (5-year survival 99.46%). Risk of revision due to deep infection increased throughout the period studied. Compared to the THAs implanted in 1987–1992, the risk of revision due to infection was 1.3 times higher (95%CI: 1.0–1.7) for those implanted in 1993–1997, 1.5 times (95% CI: 1.2–2.0) for those implanted in 1998–2002, and 3.0 times (95% CI: 2.2–4.0) for those implanted in 2003–2007. The most pronounced increase in risk of being revised due to deep infection was for the subgroup of uncemented THAs from 2003–2007, which had an increase of 5 times (95% CI: 2.6–11) compared to uncemented THAs from 1987–1992.
Interpretation The incidence of deep infection after THA increased during the period 1987–2007. Concomitant changes in confounding factors, however, complicate the interpretation of the results.
doi:10.3109/17453670903506658
PMCID: PMC2823304  PMID: 19995313
11.  Risk Factors for Early Revision after Total Hip Arthroplasty 
Arthritis care & research  2014;66(6):907-915.
Objective
Revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) is associated with increased cost, morbidity, and technical challenge compared to primary THA. A better understanding of the risk factors for early revision is needed to inform strategies to optimize patient outcomes.
Methods
207,256 patients who underwent primary THA between 1997–2005 in California and New York were identified from statewide databases. Unique patient identifiers were used to identify early revision THA (<10 years from index procedure). Patient characteristics (demographics, comorbidities, insurance type, preoperative diagnosis), community characteristics (education level, poverty, population density), and hospital characteristics (annual THA volume, bed size, teaching status) were evaluated using multivariable regression to determine risk factors for early revision.
Results
The probabilities of undergoing early aseptic revision and early septic revision were 4% and less than 1% at 5 years, respectively. Women were 29% less likely than men to undergo early septic revision (p<0.001). Patients with Medicaid and Medicare were 91% and 24%, respectively, more likely to undergo early septic revision than privately-insured patients (p=0.01; p<0.001). Hospitals performing <200 THA annually had a 34% increased risk of early aseptic revision compared to hospitals performing >400 THA annually (p<0.001).
Conclusion
A number of identifiable factors, including younger age, Medicaid, and low hospital volume increase the risk of undergoing early revision THA. Patient-level characteristics distinctly affect the risk of revision within 10 years, particularly if due to infection. Our findings reinforce the need for continued investigation of the predictors of early failure following THA.
doi:10.1002/acr.22240
PMCID: PMC4269321  PMID: 24285406
12.  The Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association 
Acta Orthopaedica  2009;80(4):393-401.
Background and purpose The possibility of comparing results and of pooling the data has been limited for the Nordic arthroplasty registries, because of different registration systems and questionnaires. We have established a common Nordic database, in order to compare demographics and the results of total hip replacement surgery between countries. In addition, we plan to study results in patient groups in which the numbers are too small to be studied in the individual countries.
Material and methods Primary total hip replacements (THRs) from 1995–2006 were selected for the study. Denmark, Sweden, and Norway contributed data. A common code set was made and Cox multiple regression, with adjustment for age, sex, and diagnosis was used to calculate prosthesis survival with any revision as endpoint.
Results 280,201 operations were included (69,242 from Denmark, 140,821 from Sweden, and 70,138 from Norway). Females accounted for 60% of the patients in Denmark and Sweden, and 70% in Norway. Childhood disease was the cause of 3.1%, 1.8%, and 8.7% of the operations in Denmark, Sweden, and Norway, respectively. Resurfacing of hips accounted for 0.5% or less in all countries. The posterior approach was used in 91% of cases in Denmark, 60% in Sweden, and 24% in Norway. Cemented THRs were used in 46% of patients in Denmark, in 89% of patients in Sweden, and in 79% of patients in Norway.
Of the 280,201 primary THRs, 9,596 (3.4%) had been revised. 10-year survival was 92% (95% CI: 91.6–92.4) in Denmark, 94% (95% CI: 93.6–94.1) in Sweden, and 93% (95% CI: 92.3–93.0) in Norway. In Denmark, 34% of the revisions were due to dislocation, as compared to 23% in Sweden and Norway. Replacement of only cup or liner constituted 44% of the revisions in Denmark, 29% in Sweden, and 33% in Norway.
Interpretation This unique common Nordic collaboration has shown differences between the countries concerning demographics, prosthesis fixation, and survival. The large number of patients in this database significantly widens our horizons for future research.
doi:10.3109/17453670903039544
PMCID: PMC2823198  PMID: 19513887
13.  Dual-mobility cups for revision due to instability are associated with a low rate of re-revisions due to dislocation 
Acta Orthopaedica  2012;83(6):566-571.
Background and purpose
Revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) due to recurrent dislocations is associated with a high risk of persistent instability. We hypothesized that the use of dual-mobility cups would reduce the risk of re-revision due to dislocation after revision THA.
Patients and methods
228 THA cup revisions (in 228 patients) performed due to recurrent dislocations and employing a specific dual-mobility cup (Avantage) were identified in the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed with re-revision due to dislocation as the primary endpoint and re-revision for any reason as the secondary endpoint. Cox regression models were fitted in order to calculate the influence of various covariates on the risk of re-revision.
Results
58 patients (25%) had been revised at least once prior to the index cup revision. The surgical approach at the index cup revision was lateral in 99 cases (44%) and posterior in 124 cases (56%). Median follow-up was 2 (0–6) years after the index cup revision, and by then 18 patients (8%) had been re-revised for any reason. Of these, 4 patients (2%) had been re-revised due to dislocation. Survival after 2 years with the endpoint revision of any component due to dislocation was 99% (95% CI: 97–100), and it was 93% (CI: 90–97) with the endpoint revision of any component for any reason. Risk factors for subsequent re-revision for any reason were age between 50–59 years at the time of the index cup revision (risk ratio (RR) = 5 when compared with age > 75, CI: 1–23) and previous revision surgery to the relevant joint (RR = 1.7 per previous revision, CI: 1–3).
Interpretation
The risk of re-revision due to dislocation after insertion of dual-mobility cups during revision THA performed for recurrent dislocations appears to be low in the short term. Since most dislocations occur early after revision THA, we believe that this device adequately addresses the problem of recurrent instability. Younger age and prior hip revision surgery are risk factors for further revision surgery. However, problems such as potentially increased liner wear and subsequent aseptic loosening may be associated with the use of such devices in the long term.
doi:10.3109/17453674.2012.742395
PMCID: PMC3555442  PMID: 23116439
14.  Minimal Incision Surgery as a Risk Factor for Early Failure of Total Hip Arthroplasty 
Background
Minimal incision total hip arthroplasty (MI THA) techniques were developed to decrease postoperative pain and recovery time. Although these techniques have increased in popularity, the long-term survivorship of these procedures is unknown.
Questions/purposes
We therefore investigated whether the time to revision in our referral practice was shorter for patients who underwent primary MI THA compared to primary traditional THA.
Methods
We retrospectively reviewed 46 revision THAs performed during a 3-year period. We excluded revisions performed for infection and rerevisions. Patients with incisions less than or equal to 10 cm were defined as having had MI THA. Fifteen of the 46 patients (33%) had undergone primary MI THA. At the time of primary index THA, the mean ages of the MI and non-MI patients were 65 years and 55 years, respectively.
Results
The mean time to revision was 1.4 years for the MI patients compared with 14.7 years for the non-MI patients. Twelve of the 15 patients having MI THA required revision within 2 years of primary THA compared to 4 of the 31 patients without MI surgery (OR = 26.5, 95% CI 4.4–160.0). There were no differences between the groups with regard to age, gender, or body mass index. The most common reasons for revision in the MI THA group were intraoperative fracture and failure of femoral component osseointegration.
Conclusions
Our data suggest MI THA may be a risk factor for early revision surgery and the long-term survival therefore may be lower than that for non-MI surgery.
Level of Evidence
Level III, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
doi:10.1007/s11999-010-1300-1
PMCID: PMC2919864  PMID: 20352391
15.  Survival of primary total hip arthroplasty in rheumatoid arthritis patients 
Acta Orthopaedica  2010;81(1):60-65.
Background and purpose
There has been a limited amount of research on survival of total hip arthroplasties (THAs) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We therefore performed a population-based, nationwide study to compare the survival of primary THAs in RA patients and in osteoarthritis (OA) patients. We also wanted to identify predictors of THA failure in RA patients.
Methods
Using the Danish Hip Arthroplasty Registry, we identified 1,661 primary THAs in RA patients and 64,858 in OA patients, all of which were inserted between 1995 and 2008. The follow-up period was up to 14 years for both groups.
Results
Regarding overall THA survival, the adjusted RR for RA patients compared to OA patients was 0.81 (95% CI: 0.65–1.01). We found no difference in survival of cups between primary THAs in RA and OA patients. In contrast, there was better overall survival of stems in RA patients than in OA patients, both regarding revision due to aseptic loosening (adjusted RR = 0.58; 95% CI: 0.34–0.99) and for any reason (adjusted RR = 0.63; 95% CI: 0.45–0.88). In RA patients, males had a higher risk of revision than females concerning aseptic loosening of the stem, any revision of the stem, and any revision of both components.
Interpretation
The overall survival of primary THAs in RA patients is similar to THA survival in OA patients. Stem survival appeared to be better in RA patients, while survival of the total THA concept did not show any statistically significant differences between the two groups. In RA patients, males appear to have a greater risk of revision than females.
doi:10.3109/17453671003685418
PMCID: PMC2856205  PMID: 20180721
16.  No influence of immigrant background on the outcome of total hip arthroplasty 
Acta Orthopaedica  2013;84(1):18-24.
Background and purpose
Total Hip Replacement (THA) is one of the most successful and cost-effective operations. Despite its benefits, marked ethnic differences in the utilization of THA are well documented. However, very little has been published on the influence of ethnicity on outcome. We investigate whether the outcome—in terms of reoperation within 2 years or revision up to 14 years after the primary operation—varies depending on ethnic background.
Methods
Records of total hip arthroplasties performed between 1992 and 2007 were retrieved from the Swedish Hip Arthropalsty Registry and integrated with data on ethnicity of patients from 2 demographical databases (i.e. Patient Register and Statistics Sweden). The first operated side in patients with THA recorded in the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register (SHAR) between 1992 and 2007 were generally included. We excluded patients with 1 Swedish and 1 non-Swedish parent and patients born abroad with 2 Swedish parents. After these exclusions 151,838 patients were left for analysis. There were 11,539 Swedish patients born outside Sweden. We used a Cox regression model including age, sex, diagnosis, type of fixation, whether or not there was comorbidity according to Elixhauser or not, marital status and educational level.
Results
The mean age was lowest in the group of patient coming from outside Europe including the former Soviet Union (61 years), and highest in the Swedish population (70 years). Before adjustment, for covariates, patients born in Europe outside the Nordic countries showed a lower risk to undergo early reoperation (HR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.56–0.97), which increased after adjustment to (HR = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.58–1.01). Before adjustment, patients born in the Nordic countries outside Sweden and those born outside Europe (including the former Soviet Union) showed a higher risk to undergo revision than patients born in Sweden (HR = 1.14, 95% CI: 1.02–1.27; HR = 1.49, 95% CI: 1.2–1.9), but this difference disappeared after adjustment for covariates.
Conclusion
We did not find any certain differences in reoperation within 2 years, or revision within 14 years, between patients born in Sweden and immigrants. Further studies are needed to determine whether our observations are biased by the attitude of health providers regarding performance of these procedures, or by a reluctance of certain patient groups to seek medical attention should any complications requiring reoperation or revision occur.
doi:10.3109/17453674.2013.765640
PMCID: PMC3584597  PMID: 23343377
17.  A Review of Current Fixation Use and Registry Outcomes in Total Hip Arthroplasty: The Uncemented Paradox 
Background
The majority (86%) of THAs performed in the United States are uncemented. This may increase the revision burden if uncemented fixation is associated with a higher risk of revision than other approaches.
Question/purposes
We sought to investigate trends for use of uncemented fixation and to analyze age-stratified risk of revision comparing cemented, hybrid, and uncemented fixation as reported by national hip arthroplasty registries.
Methods
Data were extracted from the annual reports of seven national hip arthroplasty registries; we included all national registries for which annual reports were available in English or a Scandinavian language, if the registry had a history of more than 5 years of data collection.
Results
Current use of uncemented fixation in primary THAs varies between 15% in Sweden and 82% in Canada. From 2006 to 2010 the registries of all countries reported overall increases in the use of uncemented fixation; Sweden reported the smallest absolute increase (from 10% to 15%), and Denmark reported the greatest absolute increase (from 47% to 68%). Looking only at the oldest age groups, use of uncemented fixation also was increasing during the period. In the oldest age group of each of the registries we surveyed (age older than 65 years for England-Wales; age older than 75 years in three registries), cemented fixation was associated with a lower risk of revision than was uncemented fixation.
Conclusions
Increasing use of uncemented fixation in THA is a worldwide phenomenon. This trend is paradoxic, given that registry data, which represent nationwide THA outcomes, suggest that cemented fixation in patients older than 75 years results in the lowest risk of revision.
Level of Evidence
Level II, systematic review. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
doi:10.1007/s11999-013-2941-7
PMCID: PMC3676623  PMID: 23539124
18.  Hip resurfacing arthroplasty: short-term survivorship of 4,401 hips from the Finnish Arthroplasty Register 
Acta Orthopaedica  2012;83(3):207-213.
Background and purpose
Population-based registry data from the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA) and from the National Joint Register of England and Wales have revealed that the outcome after hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) is inferior to that of conventional total hip arthroplasty (THA). We analyzed the short-term survival of 4,401 HRAs in the Finnish Arthroplasty Register.
Methods
We compared the revision risk of the 4,401 HRAs from the Register to that of 48,409 THAs performed during the same time period. The median follow-up time was 3.5 (0–9) years for HRAs and 3.9 (0–9) years for THAs.
Results
There was no statistically significant difference in revision risk between HRAs and THAs (RR = 0.93, 95% CI: 0.78–1.10). Female patients had about double the revision risk of male patients (RR = 2.0, CI: 1.4–2.7). Hospitals that had performed 100 or more HRA procedures had a lower revision risk than those with less than 100 HRAs (RR = 0.6, CI: 0.4–0.9). Articular Surface Replacement (ASR, DePuy) had inferior outcome with higher revision risk than the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing implant (BHR, Smith & Nephew), the reference implant (RR = 1.8, CI: 1.2–2.7).
Interpretation
We found that HRA had comparable short-term survivorship to THA at a nationwide level. Implant design had an influence on revision rates. ASR had higher revision risk. Low hospital procedure volume worsened the outcome of HRA. Female patients had twice the revision risk of male patients.
doi:10.3109/17453674.2012.693016
PMCID: PMC3369143  PMID: 22616745
19.  Hip prosthesis introduction and early revision risk 
Acta Orthopaedica  2013;84(1):25-31.
Background and purpose
Little is known about the effect of the learning curve for different types of total hip arthroplasties (THAs). We investigated the prostheses survival of THAs just after the implementation of a model new to the hospital, and compared these results with the results of THAs done when more than 100 implantations had been undertaken. In addition, we investigated whether differences exist between different types of femoral stems and acetabular cups at the early implementation phase.
Patients and methods
We used comprehensive registry data from all units (n = 76) that performed THAs for primary osteoarthritis in Finland between 1998 and 2007. Complete data including follow-up data to December 31, 2010 or until death were available for 33,819 patients (39,125 THAs). The stems and cups used were given order numbers in each hospital and classified into 5 groups: operations with order number (a) 1–15, (b) 16–30, (c) 31–50, (d) 51–100, and (e) > 100. We used Cox’s proportional hazards modeling for calculation of the adjusted hazard ratios for the risk of revision during the 3 years following the implementation of a new THA endoprosthesis type in the groups.
Results
Introduction of new endoprosthesis types was common, as more than 1 in 7 patients received a type that had been previously used in 15 or less operations. For the first 15 operations after a stem or cup type was introduced, there was an elevated risk of revision (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.3, 95% CI: 1.1–1.5). There were differences in the risk of early revision between stem and cup types at implementation.
Interpretation
The first 15 operations with a new stem or cup model had an increased risk of early revision surgery. Stems and cups differed in their early revision risk, particularly at the implementation phase. Thus, the risk of early revision at the implementation phase should be considered when a new type of THA is brought into use.
doi:10.3109/17453674.2013.771299
PMCID: PMC3584598  PMID: 23368748
20.  Medical Comorbidity is Associated with Persistent Index Hip Pain after Primary THA 
Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.)  2013;14(8):10.1111/pme.12153.
Objective
To characterize whether medical comorbidity predicts persistent moderate-severe pain after total hip arthroplasty (THA)
Methods
We analyzed the prospectively collected data from the Mayo Clinic Total Joint Registry for patients who underwent primary or revision THA between 1993–2005. Using multivariable-adjusted logistic regression analyses, we examined whether certain medical comorbidities were associated with persistent moderate-severe hip pain 2- or 5-years after primary or revision THA. Odds ratios (OR), along with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and p-value are presented.
Results
The primary THA cohort consisted of 5,707 THAs and 3,289 THAs at 2- and 5-years, and revision THA, 2,687 and 1,627 THAs, respectively. In multivariable-adjusted logistic regression models, in the primary THA cohort, renal disease was associated with lower odds of moderate-severe hip pain (OR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.3, 1.0) at 2-years. None of the comorbidities were significantly associated at 5-years. In the revision THA cohort, heart disease was significantly associated with higher risk (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.1, 2.6) at 2-years and connective tissue disease with lower risk (OR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.3, 0.9) of moderate-severe hip pain at 5-years follow-up.
Conclusion
This study identified new correlates of moderate-severe hip pain after primary or revision THA, a much-feared outcome of hip arthroplasty. Patients with these comorbidities should be informed regarding the increased risk or moderate-severe index hip pain, so that they can have a fully informed consent and realistic expectations.
doi:10.1111/pme.12153
PMCID: PMC3814009  PMID: 23742141
Pain; Function; functional limitation; Total hip replacement; primary; arthroplasty; joint replacement; outcomes; Patient-Reported Outcomes
21.  Unplanned Hip Arthroplasty Imposes Clinical and Cost Burdens on Treating Institutions 
Background
Emergent surgery has been shown to be a risk factor for perioperative complications. Studies suggest that patient morbidity is greater with an unplanned hip arthroplasty, although it is controversial whether unplanned procedures also result in higher patient mortality. The financial impact of these procedures is not fully understood, as the costs of unplanned primary hip arthroplasties have not been studied previously.
Questions/purposes
We asked: (1) What are the institutional costs associated with unplanned hip arthroplasties (primary THA, hemiarthroplasty, revision arthroplasty, including treatment of periprosthetic fractures, dislocations, and infections)? (2) Does timing of surgery (urgent/unplanned versus elective) influence perioperative outcomes such as mortality, length of stay, or need for advanced care? (3) What diagnoses are associated with unplanned surgery and are treated urgently most often? (4) Do demographics and insurance status differ between admission types (unplanned versus elective hip arthroplasty)?
Methods
We prospectively followed all 419 patients who were admitted to our Level I trauma center in 2011 for procedures including primary THA, hemiarthroplasty, and revision arthroplasty, including the treatment of periprosthetic fractures, dislocations, and infections. Fifty-seven patients who were treated urgently on an unplanned basis were compared with 362 patients who were treated electively. Demographics, admission diagnoses, complications, and costs were recorded and analyzed statistically.
Results
Median total costs were 24% greater for patients admitted for unplanned hip arthroplasties (USD18,206 [USD15,261–27,491] versus USD14,644 [USD13,511–16,309]; p < 0.0001) for patients admitted for elective arthroplasties. Patients with unplanned admissions had a 67% longer median hospital stay (5 days [range, 4–9 days] versus 3 days [range, 3–4 days]; p < 0.0001) for patients with elective admissions. Mortality rates were equivalent between groups (p = 1.0). Femoral fracture (p < 0.0001), periprosthetic fracture (p = 0.01), prosthetic infection (p = 0.005), and prosthetic dislocation (p < 0.0001) were observed at higher rates in the patients with unplanned admissions. These patients were older (p = 0.04), less likely to have commercial insurance (p < 0.0001), more likely to be transferred from another institution (p < 0.0001), and more likely to undergo a revision procedure (p < 0.0001).
Conclusions
Unplanned arthroplasty and urgent surgery are associated with increased financial and clinical burdens, which must be accounted for when considering bundled quality and reimbursement measures for these procedures.
Level of Evidence
Level II, therapeutic study. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
doi:10.1007/s11999-013-3226-x
PMCID: PMC3825898  PMID: 23928711
22.  Risk factors for revision of primary total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review 
Background
Numerous papers have been published examining risk factors for revision of primary total hip arthroplasty (THA), but there have been no comprehensive systematic literature reviews that summarize the most recent findings across a broad range of potential predictors.
Methods
We performed a PubMed search for papers published between January, 2000 and November, 2010 that provided data on risk factors for revision of primary THA. We collected data on revision for any reason, as well as on revision for aseptic loosening, infection, or dislocation. For each risk factor that was examined in at least three papers, we summarize the number and direction of statistically significant associations reported.
Results
Eighty-six papers were included in our review. Factors found to be associated with revision included younger age, greater comorbidity, a diagnosis of avascular necrosis (AVN) as compared to osteoarthritis (OA), low surgeon volume, and larger femoral head size. Male sex was associated with revision due to aseptic loosening and infection. Longer operating time was associated with revision due to infection. Smaller femoral head size was associated with revision due to dislocation.
Conclusions
This systematic review of literature published between 2000 and 2010 identified a range of demographic, clinical, surgical, implant, and provider variables associated with the risk of revision following primary THA. These findings can inform discussions between surgeons and patients relating to the risks and benefits of undergoing total hip arthroplasty.
doi:10.1186/1471-2474-13-251
PMCID: PMC3541060  PMID: 23241396
Total hip arthroplasty; Revision; Failure; Risk factor; Aseptic loosening; Infection; Dislocation; Systematic review
23.  High Dislocation Cumulative Risk in THA versus Hemiarthroplasty for Fractures 
Background
Although not all elderly patients with femoral neck fractures are candidates for THA, active, mentally competent, independent patients achieve the most durable functional scores with THA compared with hemiarthroplasty. However, a relatively high frequency of early or late dislocation could reduce the potential benefits with THA.
Questions/purposes
We asked whether the incidence of first-time, recurrent dislocation, and revision differed in patients with hip fractures having THA or hemiarthroplasty.
Patients and Methods
We retrospectively reviewed 380 patients with hip fractures (380 hips) who underwent THAs between 1995 and 1999, and compared them with 412 patients with hip fractures (412 hips) who underwent hemiarthroplasties between 1990 and 1994. The mean followup was 8 years (range, 1–20 years).
Results
THA had a higher early risk of first-time dislocation and a higher late risk: 19 (4.5%) of the 412 hips treated with hemiarthroplasty had at least one dislocation whereas 30 (8.1%) of the 380 hips treated with THA had at least one dislocation. The cumulative number of dislocations at the most recent followup (first time and recurrent dislocations) was 58 (13%) for the 380 THAs and 22 (5%) for the 412 hemiarthroplasties. At the 10-year followup, eight THAs (2%) had revision (six recurrent dislocations, two loosenings), and 42 hemiarthroplasties (10%) had revision (40 acetabular protrusions, one recurrent dislocation).
Conclusions
The risk of revision for recurrent dislocation increases with THA, but it remains lower than the risk of revision for wear of cartilage and acetabular protrusion in hemiarthroplasty.
Level of Evidence
Level III, therapeutic study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
doi:10.1007/s11999-011-1987-7
PMCID: PMC3183183  PMID: 21773860
24.  The risk of revision due to dislocation after total hip arthroplasty depends on surgical approach, femoral head size, sex, and primary diagnosis 
Acta Orthopaedica  2012;83(5):442-448.
Background and purpose
The effects of patient-related and technical factors on the risk of revision due to dislocation after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) are only partly understood. We hypothesized that increasing the femoral head size can reduce this risk, that the lateral surgical approach is associated with a lower risk than the posterior and minimally invasive approaches, and that gender and diagnosis influence the risk of revision due to dislocation.
Patients and methods
Data on 78,098 THAs in 61,743 patients performed between 2005 and 2010 were extracted from the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. Inclusion criteria were a head size of 22, 28, 32, or 36 mm, or the use of a dual-mobility cup. The covariates age, sex, primary diagnosis, type of surgical approach, and head size were entered into Cox proportional hazards models in order to calculate the adjusted relative risk (RR) of revision due to dislocation, with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
Results
After a mean follow-up of 2.7 (0–6) years, 399 hips (0.5%) had been revised due to dislocation. The use of 22-mm femoral heads resulted in a higher risk of revision than the use of 28-mm heads (RR = 2.0, CI: 1.2–3.3). Only 1 of 287 dual-mobility cups had been revised due to dislocation. Compared with the direct lateral approach, minimally invasive approaches were associated with a higher risk of revision due to dislocation (RR = 4.2, CI: 2.3–7.7), as were posterior approaches (RR = 1.3, CI: 1.1–1.7). An increased risk of revision due to dislocation was found for the diagnoses femoral neck fracture (RR = 3.9, CI: 3.1–5.0) and osteonecrosis of the femoral head (RR = 3.7, CI: 2.5–5.5), whereas women were at lower risk than men (RR = 0.8, CI: 0.7–1.0). Restriction of the analysis to the first 6 months after the index procedure gave similar risk estimates.
Interpretation
Patients with femoral neck fracture or osteonecrosis of the femoral head are at higher risk of dislocation. Use of the minimally invasive and posterior approaches also increases this risk, and we raise the question of whether patients belonging to risk groups should be operated using lateral approaches. The use of femoral head diameters above 28 mm or of dual-mobility cups reduced this risk in a clinically relevant manner, but this observation was not statistically significant.
doi:10.3109/17453674.2012.733919
PMCID: PMC3488169  PMID: 23039167
25.  Knee arthroplasty in Denmark, Norway and Sweden 
Acta Orthopaedica  2010;81(1):82-89.
Background and purpose
The number of national arthroplasty registries is increasing. However, the methods of registration, classification, and analysis often differ.
Methods
We combined data from 3 Nordic knee arthroplasty registers, comparing demographics, methods, and overall results. Primary arthroplasties during the period 1997–2007 were included. Each register produced a dataset of predefined variables, after which the data were combined and descriptive and survival statistics produced.
Results
The incidence of knee arthroplasty increased in all 3 countries, but most in Denmark. Norway had the lowest number of procedures per hospital—less than half that of Sweden and Denmark. The preference for implant brands varied and only 3 total brands and 1 unicompartmental brand were common in all 3 countries. Use of patellar button for total knee arthroplasty was popular in Denmark (76%) but not in Norway (11%) or Sweden (14%). Uncemented or hybrid fixation of components was also more frequent in Denmark (22%) than in Norway (14%) and Sweden (2%).
After total knee arthroplasty for osteoarthritis, the cumulative revision rate (CRR) was lowest in Sweden, with Denmark and Norway having a relative risk (RR) of 1.4 (95% CI: 1.3–1.6) and 1.6 (CI: 1.4–1.7) times higher. The result was similar when only including brands used in more than 200 cases in all 3 countries (AGC, Duracon, and NexGen). After unicompartmental arthroplasty for osteoarthritis, the CRR for all models was also lowest in Sweden, with Denmark and Norway having RRs of 1.7 (CI: 1.4–2.0) and 1.5 (CI: 1.3–1.8), respectively. When only the Oxford implant was analyzed, however, the CRRs were similar and the RRs were 1.2 (CI: 0.9–1.7) and 1.3 (CI: 1.0–1.7).
Interpretation
We found considerable differences between the 3 countries, with Sweden having a lower revision rate than Denmark and Norway. Further classification and standardization work is needed to permit more elaborate studies.
doi:10.3109/17453671003685442
PMCID: PMC2856209  PMID: 20180723

Results 1-25 (902095)