PMCC PMCC

Search tips
Search criteria

Advanced
Results 1-8 (8)
 

Clipboard (0)
None
Journals
Authors
Year of Publication
Document Types
1.  A prospective cohort study on the short collum femoris-preserving (CFP) stem using RSA and DXA 
Acta Orthopaedica  2013;84(1):32-39.
Background and purpose
Short femoral stems have been introduced in total hip arthroplasty in order to save proximal bone stock. We hypothesized that a short stem preserves periprosthetic bone mineral density (BMD) and provides good primary stability.
Methods
We carried out a prospective cohort study of 30 patients receiving the collum femoris-preserving (CFP) stem. Preoperative total hip BMD and postoperative periprosthetic BMD in Gruen zones 1–7 were investigated by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA), stem migration was analyzed by radiostereometric analysis (RSA), and the Harris hip score (HHS) was determined.
Results
2 patients were excluded intraoperatively and 1 patient was revised due to a deep infection, leaving 27 patients for analysis. The mean HHS increased from 49 (24–79) preoperatively to 99 (92–100) after 2 years. DXA after 1 year showed substantial loss of BMD in Gruen zone 7 (–31%), zone 6 (–19%), and zone 2 (–13%, p < 0.001) compared to baseline BMD determined immediately postoperatively. The bone loss in these regions did not recover after 2 years, whereas the more moderate bone loss in Gruen zones 1, 3, and 5 partially recovered. There was a correlation between low preoperative total hip BMD and a higher amount of bone loss in Gruen zones 2, 6 and 7. RSA showed minor micromotion of the stem: mean subsidence was 0.13 (95% CI: –0.28 to 0.01) mm and mean rotation around the longitudinal axis was 0.01º (95% CI: –0.1 to 0.39) after 2 years.
Interpretation
We conclude that substantial loss in proximal periprosthetic BMD cannot be prevented by the use of a novel type of short, curved stem, and forces appear to be transmitted distally. However, the stems showed very small migration—a characteristic of stable uncemented implants.
doi:10.3109/17453674.2013.765623
PMCID: PMC3584599  PMID: 23343375
2.  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
3.  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
4.  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
5.  Salvage of failed trochanteric and subtrochanteric fractures using a distally fixed, modular, uncemented hip revision stem 
Acta Orthopaedica  2012;83(5):488-492.
Background and purpose
Treatment options for failed internal fixation of hip fractures include prosthetic replacement. We evaluated survival, complications, and radiographic outcome in 30 patients who were operated with a specific modular, uncemented hip reconstruction prosthesis as a salvage procedure after failed treatment of trochanteric and subtrochanteric fractures.
Patients and methods
We used data from the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register and journal files to analyze complications and survival. Initially, a high proportion of trochanteric fractures (7/10) were classified as unstable and 12 of 20 subtrochanteric fractures had an extension through the greater trochanter. Modes of failure after primary internal fixation were cutout (n = 12), migration of the femoral neck screw (n = 9), and other (n = 9).
Results
Mean age at the index operation with the modular prosthesis was 77 (52–93) years and the mean follow-up was 4 (1–9) years. Union of the remaining fracture fragments was observed in 26 hips, restoration of proximal bone defects in 16 hips, and bone ingrowth of the stem in 25 hips. Subsidence was evident in 4 cases. 1 patient was revised by component exchange because of recurrent dislocation, and another 6 patients were reoperated: 5 because of deep infections and 1 because of periprosthetic fracture. The cumulative 3-year survival for revision was 96% (95% CI: 89–100) and for any reoperation it was 83% (68–93).
Interpretation
The modular stem allowed fixation distal to the fracture system. Radiographic outcome was good. The rate of complications, however—especially infections—was high. We believe that preoperative laboratory screening for low-grade infection and synovial cultures could contribute to better treatment in some of these patients.
doi:10.3109/17453674.2012.733917
PMCID: PMC3488175  PMID: 23083435
6.  Survival of uncemented acetabular monoblock cups 
Acta Orthopaedica  2012;83(3):214-219.
Background and purpose
Monoblock acetabular cups represent a subtype of uncemented cups with the polyethylene liner molded into a metal shell, thus eliminating—or at least minimizing—potential backside wear. We hypothesized that the use of mono​block cups could reduce the incidence of osteolysis and aseptic loosening, and thus improve survival compared to modular designs.
Patients and methods
We identified all 210 primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) procedures in the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register that used uncemented monoblock cups during the period 1999–2010. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses with adjustment for age, sex, and other variables were used to calculate survival rates and adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) of the revision risk for any reason. 1,130 modular cups, inserted during the same time period, were used as a control group.
Results
There was a nearly equal sex distribution in both groups. Median age at the index operation was 47 years in the monoblock group and 56 years in the control group (p < 0.001). The cumulative 5-year survival with any revision as the endpoint was 95% (95% CI: 91–98) for monoblock cups and 97% (CI: 96–98) for modular cups (p = 0.6). The adjusted HR for revision of monoblock cups compared to modular cups was 2 (CI: 0.8–6; p = 0.1). The use of 28-mm prosthesis heads rather than 22-mm heads reduced the risk of cup revision (HR = 0.2, CI: 0.1–0.5; p = 0.001).
Interpretation
Both cups showed good medium-term survival rates. There was no statistically significant difference in revision risk between the cup designs. Further review of the current patient population is warranted to determine the long-term durability and risk of revision of monoblock cup designs.
doi:10.3109/17453674.2012.688726
PMCID: PMC3369144  PMID: 22574820
7.  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
8.  Increased risk of revision of acetabular cups coated with hydroxyapatite 
Acta Orthopaedica  2010;81(1):53-59.
Background
Hydroxyapatite (HA) is the main inorganic component of bone, and HA coating is widely used on acetabular cups in hip arthroplasty. It has been suggested that this surface finish improves cup survival.
Methods
All patients registered in the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register between 1992 and 2007 with an uncemented acetabular implant that was available either with or without HA coating were identified. 8,043 total hip arthroplasties (THAs) with the most common cup types (Harris-Galante, Romanus, and Trilogy) were investigated. A Cox regression model including type of coating, age, sex, primary diagnosis, cup type, and type of stem fixation was used to calculate adjusted risk ratios (RRs) for the risk of revision.
Results
HA coating was a risk factor for cup revision due to aseptic loosening (adjusted RR 1.7; 95% CI: 1.3–2). Age at primary arthroplasty of < 50 years, a diagnosis of pediatric hip disease, the use of a cemented stem, and the Romanus and Harris-Galante cup types were also associated with statistically significantly increased risk of cup revision due to aseptic loosening.
Interpretation
Our findings question the routine use of HA-coated cups in primary total hip arthroplasty. With some designs, this practice may even increase the risk of loosening—resulting in revision surgery.
doi:10.3109/17453670903413178
PMCID: PMC2856204  PMID: 19968603

Results 1-8 (8)