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.
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).
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
The differences in THR survival rates were considerable, with inferior results in Finland. Brand-level comparison of THRs in Nordic countries will be required.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
Dual mobility (DM) cups of mobile polyethylene were introduced to prevent total hip arthroplasty (THA) dislocation, but no large series with this design to treat recurrent instability have been reported.
Our retrospective investigation ascertained the efficiency of DM cups in correction of recurrent dislocation and assessed any adverse effects.
One hundred eighty THAs with recurrent instability were revised to DM cups in 180 patients (mean age, 67.4 ± 11.7 years; range, 19 to 92 years). Thirty-one patients (17.2%) underwent at least one earlier THA revision, and 15 (10.3%) incurred non-union of the greater trochanter. Of the initial group in 2009, 145 patients had completed evaluations which included assessment of the Harris Hip Score and a radiographic assessment at a mean follow-up of 7.7 ± 2.2 years (range, 4 to 14 years). The rate of survival was calculated considering any reason for revision as failure.
At follow-up, Harris hip score was 83.9 ± 16.1 (range, 21 to 100). Dislocation of the large articulation occurred in seven hips (4.8%), and only two recurred (1.4%) (one requiring additional revision). In addition, two intra-prosthetic dislocations of the small articulation (1.4%) were observed and needed revision surgery. The large number of earlier surgeries and non-union of the greater trochanter were related to recurrent instability. Two cups (1.4%) showed signs of definite loosening; six (4.1%) presented signs of possible loosening. Twenty-nine hips manifested femoral or acetabular osteolysis (20%), but only three were severe. Eight-year survival rate considering revision for any reason was 92.6% (95% CI, 85.5–96.4%).
This series indicates that DM cups are a viable option to treat recurrent THA instability. Their design provides a low risk of recurrent instability without increasing mechanical complications.
hip arthroplasty; instability; dual mobility; revision; bearing; wear; polyethylene
Background and purpose
The most common surgical approaches in total hip arthroplasty in Sweden are the posterior and the anterolateral transgluteal approach. Currently, however, there is insufficient evidence to prefer one over the other regarding risk of subsequent surgery.
Patients and methods
We searched the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register between the years 1992 and 2009 to compare the posterior and anterolateral transgluteal approach regarding risk of revision in the 3 most common all-cemented hip prosthesis designs in Sweden. 90,662 total hip replacements met the inclusion criteria. We used Cox regression analysis for estimation of prosthesis survival and relative risk of revision due to dislocation, infection, or aseptic loosening.
Our results show that for the Lubinus SPII prosthesis and the Spectron EF Primary prosthesis, the anterolateral transgluteal approach gave an increased risk of revision due to aseptic loosening (relative risk (RR) = 1.3, 95% CI: 1.0–1.6 and RR = 1.6, CI: 1.0–2.5) but a reduced risk of revision due to dislocation (RR = 0.7, CI: 0.5–0.8 and RR = 0.3, CI: 0.1–0.4). For the Exeter Polished prosthesis, the surgical approach did not affect the outcome for dislocation or aseptic loosening. The surgical approach had no influence on the risk of revision due to infection in any of these designs.
This observational study shows that the surgical approach affected the risk of revision due to aseptic loosening and dislocation for 2 of the most commonly used cemented implants in Sweden. Further studies are needed to determine whether these results are generalizable to other implants and to uncemented fixation.
Recent studies have recommended the discontinuation of metal-on-metal (MoM) components in total hip arthroplasty (THA) because of adverse effects reported with large-diameter MoM THA. This is despite favorable long-term results observed with 28 and 32 mm MoM bearings.
The aim of this study was to assess the value of calls for an end to MoM bearings as THA components. Specifically, we wish to address the risks associated with MoM bearings including adverse soft tissue reactions, metal ion release, and carcinogenic risk.
The study evaluates the arguments in the literature reporting on MoM (adverse soft tissue reactions, metal ion release, and carcinogenic risk) and the experience of the current authors who re-introduced these bearings in 1995. They are balanced by a benefit–risk review of the literature and the authors’ experience with MoM use.
Adverse reactions to metallic debris as well as metal ion release are predictable and can be prevented by adequate design (arc of coverage, clearance), metallurgy (forged instead of cast alloy, high-carbide content), and appropriate component orientation. There is no scientific evidence that carcinogenicity is increased in subjects with MoM hip prostheses. MoM articulations appear to be attractive allowing safe hip resurfacing, decreasing the risk of THA revision in active patients, and providing secure THA fixation with cement in cages in severely deformed hips. MoM bearings in women of child-bearing age are controversial, but long-term data on metallic devices in adolescents undergoing spinal surgery seem reassuring.
Adequate selection of MoM articulations ensures their safe use. These articulations are sensitive to orientation. Fifteen years of safe experience with 28- and 32-mm bearings of forged alloy and high-carbide content is the main reason for retaining them in primary and revision THA.
metal-on-metal bearing; metal sensitivity; chromium; wear; cobalt, ions; hip resurfacing; pseudotumors
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.
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.
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.
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.
Total hip arthroplasty; Revision; Failure; Risk factor; Aseptic loosening; Infection; Dislocation; Systematic review
The published data on pain and physical function before and after revision of total hip arthroplasty (THA) is scarce. The study reports the course and interrelationships of radiographic loosening, pain and physical function 5 year before and after a first revision THA.
The study was based on the IDES-THA database. All patients with their first THA revision for aseptic loosening and a documented index surgery on the same side and at least one pre-revision and one post-revision follow-up were selected. Only patients with an intact contralateral hip joint (Charnley class-A) were included. Follow-ups within ±5.5 years around the revision time point were analyzed. Annual prevalences of radiographic component loosening and the non-desired outcomes (moderate/severe/intolerable pain, walking <30 minutes, hip flexion range <90°) were calculated.
Signs of radiographic component loosening started to increase about 4 years before revision surgery. Two years later, a sharp increase of painful hips from 15% to 80% in the revision year was observed. In the year after revision surgery, this rate dropped back to below 10%. Walking capacity started to noticeably deteriorate 3 years before revision and in the revision year about 65% of patients could not walk longer than 30 minutes. As opposed to pain, walking capacity did not recover to pre-revision levels and the best outcome was only reached two years post-revision. Hip flexion range had the slowest and least extent of deterioration (≈45% flexed <70° in the revision year) but with the best outcomes at only three years after revision surgery it took the longest to recover.
Prevalence of radiological loosening signs and/or pain intensity follow an almost parallel course around the first revision of a THA for aseptic component loosening. This process begins about 4 years (radiographic loosening) before the actual revision surgery and intensifies about 2 years later (pain). It also involves walking capacity and hip range of motion. While pain levels go back to levels similar to those after primary surgery, range of motion and even more walking capacity remain moderately compromised.
Total hip arthroplasty; Revision THA; IDES; Radiographic loosening; Functional outcome
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.
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).
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).
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.
Background and purpose
The number of national arthroplasty registries is increasing. However, the methods of registration, classification, and analysis often differ.
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.
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).
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.
Background and purpose
Recent years have seen a rapid increase in the use of resurfacing hip arthroplasty despite the lack of literature on the long-term outcome. In particular, there is little evidence regarding the outcome of revisions of primary resurfacing. The purpose of this analysis was to examine the survivorship of primary resurfacing hip arthroplasties that have been revised.
Patients and methods
Over 12,000 primary resurfacing hip arthroplasties were recorded by the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry between September 1, 1999 and December 31, 2008. During this time, 397 revisions for reasons other than infection were reported for these primary resurfacings and classified as acetabular, femoral, or both acetabular and femoral revisions. The survivorship of the different types of revisions was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using proportional hazard models. Additionally, the outcome of a femoral-only revision was compared to that of primary conventional total hip arthroplasty.
Acetabular-only revision had a high risk of re-revision compared to femoral-only and both acetabular and femoral revision (5-year cumulative per cent revision of 20%, 7%, and 5% respectively). Femoral-only revision had a risk of re-revision similar to that of revision of both the acetabular and femoral components. Femoral-only revision had over twice the risk of revision of primary conventional total hip arthroplasty.
Revision of a primary resurfacing arthroplasty is associated with a major risk of re-revision. The best outcome is achieved when either the femoral-only or both the acetabular and femoral components are revised. Technically straightforward femoral-only revisions generally have a worse outcome than a primary conventional total hip arthroplasty.
Smoking is considered a risk factor for surgical complications in total hip arthroplasty (THA) and has been linked to a higher rate of aseptic loosening in uncemented acetabular components. Acetabular reconstruction with newer ultraporous metals in both complex primary and revision THA has increased survivorship but it is unclear whether smoking affects survival of these implants.
We reviewed our early experience with THA using ultraporous acetabular components to assess the incidence and etiology of early failure and examine if any preoperative variables, including smoking, related to failure.
We used ultraporous acetabular components in 498 patients (534 hips), beginning with one case each in 1999 and 2004, 17 in 2005, and the majority from 2006 through March 2010. There were 159 complex primary and 375 revision cases. Of these patients, 17% were smokers (averaging 35 pack-years), 31% previous smokers (averaging 29 pack-years), 41% nonsmokers, and 1% unknown. Failure modes possibly related to smoking were infection, aseptic loosening, or periacetabular fracture and unrelated were dislocation and implant breakage. Minimum followup was 1 month (average, 32 months; range, 1–78 months).
There were 34 cup failures (6%): 17 infections, 14 aseptic loosening, and one each liner breakage, dislocation, and periacetabular fracture. The failure rate (uncontrolled for potentially confounding variables) was 10% in both current (9 of 89) and prior smokers (17 of 167) and 3% in nonsmokers 8 of 271).
With ultraporous metal technology in complex primary and revision THA, smoking, both past and current, may be a risk factor for early failure.
Level of Evidence
Level IV, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
There remains uncertainty regarding the relative importance of patient factors such as comorbidity and provider factors such as hospital volume in predicting complication rates after total hip arthroplasty (THA).
We therefore identified patient and provider factors predicting complications after THA.
We reviewed discharge data from 138,399 patients undergoing primary THA in California from 1995 to 2005. The rate of complications during the first 90 days postoperatively (mortality, infection, dislocation, revision, perioperative fracture, neurologic injury, and thromboembolic disease) was regressed against a variety of independent variables, including patient factors (age, gender, race/ethnicity, income, Charlson comorbidity score) and provider variables (hospital volume, teaching status, rural location).
Compared with patients treated at high-volume hospitals (above the 20th percentile), patients treated at low-volume hospitals (below the 60th percentile) had a higher aggregate risk of having short-term complications (odds ratio, 2.00). A variety of patient factors also had associations with an increased risk of complications: increased Charlson comorbidity score, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, advanced age, male gender, and black race. Hispanic and Asian patients had lower risks of complications.
Patient and provider characteristics affected the risk of a short-term complication after THA. These results may be useful for educating patients and anticipating perioperative risks of THA in different patient populations.
Level of Evidence
Level II, prognostic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Little is known about the impact of the reason for revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) on the outcomes following revision THA. In this study, our objective was to assess the association of operative diagnosis with patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after revision THA.
We used prospectively collected data from the Mayo Clinic Total Joint Registry that collects pre- and post-operative pain and function outcomes using a validated Hip questionnaire, on all revision THAs from 1993–2005. We used logistic regression to assess the odds of moderate-severe index hip pain and moderate-severe limitation in activities of daily living (ADLs) 2- and 5-years after revision THA. We calculated odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
For the 2- and 5-year cohorts, the operative diagnosis was loosening/wear/osteolysis in 73% and 75%; dislocation/bone or prosthesis fracture/instability or non-union in 17% and 15%; and failed prior arthroplasty with components removed/infection in 11% and 11%, respectively. In multivariable-adjusted analyses that included preoperative ADL limitations, compared to patients with loosening/wear/osteolysis, patients with dislocation/fracture/instability/non-union had OR of 2.2 (95% CI, 1.3-3.5; p = 0.002) for overall moderate-severe ADL limitation and those with failed prior arthroplasty/infection had OR of 1.6 (95% CI, 1.0-2.8; p = 0.06). At 5-years, ORs were lower and differences were no longer significant. Moderate-severe pain did not differ significantly by diagnosis, at 2- or 5-years in multivariable adjusted analyses, with one exception, i.e. failed prior arthroplasty/infection had a trend towards significance with odds ratio of 1.9 (95% CI, 0.9-3.8; p = 0.07).
Operative diagnosis is independently associated with ADL limitations, but not pain, at 2-years after revision THA. Patients should be informed of the risk of poorer short-term outcomes based on their diagnosis.
Total hip replacement; Arthroplasty; Joint replacement; Patient-reported outcomes; Diagnosis
Advances in surgical technique and implant technology have improved the ten-year survival after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). Despite this, the number of revision procedures has been increasing in recent years, a trend which is predicted to continue into the future. Revision THA is a technically demanding procedure often complicated by a loss of host bone stock which may be compounded by the need to remove primary implants. Both cemented and uncemented implant designs are commonly used in the United Kingdom for primary and revision THA and much controversy still exists as to the ideal method of stem fixation. In this article we discuss revision of the femur using cemented components during revision THA. We focus on three clinical scenarios including femoral cement-in-cement revision where the primary femoral cement-bone interface remains well fixed, femoral cement-in-cement revision for peri-prosthetic femoral fractures, and femoral impaction grafting. We discuss the clinical indications, surgical techniques and clinical outcomes for each of these procedures.