Literature DB >> 23188900

The design of the acetabular component and size of the femoral head influence the risk of revision following 34 721 single-brand cemented hip replacements: a retrospective cohort study of medium-term data from a National Joint Registry.

S S Jameson1, P N Baker, J Mason, P J Gregg, N Brewster, D J Deehan, M R Reed.   

Abstract

Despite excellent results, the use of cemented total hip replacement (THR) is declining. This retrospective cohort study records survival time to revision following primary cemented THR using the most common combination of components that accounted for almost a quarter of all cemented THRs, exploring risk factors independently associated with failure. All patients with osteoarthritis who had an Exeter V40/Contemporary THR (Stryker) implanted before 31 December 2010 and recorded in the National Joint Registry for England and Wales were included in the analysis. Cox's proportional hazard models were used to analyse the extent to which risk of revision was related to patient, surgeon and implant covariates, with a significance threshold of p < 0.01. A total of 34 721 THRs were included in the study. The overall seven-year rate of revision for any reason was 1.70% (99% confidence interval (CI) 1.28 to 2.12). In the final adjusted model the risk of revision was significantly higher in THRs with the Contemporary hooded component (hazard ratio (HR) 1.88, p < 0.001) than with the flanged version, and in smaller head sizes (< 28 mm) compared with 28 mm diameter heads (HR 1.50, p = 0.005). The seven-year revision rate was 1.16% (99% CI 0.69 to 1.63) with a 28 mm diameter head and flanged component. The overall risk of revision was independent of age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, body mass index, surgeon volume, surgical approach, brand of cement/presence of antibiotic, femoral head material (stainless steel/alumina) and stem taper size/offset. However, the risk of revision for dislocation was significantly higher with a 'plus' offset head (HR 2.05, p = 0.003) and a hooded acetabular component (HR 2.34, p < 0.001). In summary, we found that there were significant differences in failure between different designs of acetabular component and sizes of femoral head after adjustment for a range of covariates.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23188900     DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.94B12.30040

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br        ISSN: 0301-620X


  10 in total

1.  No Increase in Survival for 36-mm versus 32-mm Femoral Heads in Metal-on-polyethylene THA: A Registry Study.

Authors:  Georgios Tsikandylakis; Johan Kärrholm; Nils P Hailer; Antti Eskelinen; Keijo T Mäkelä; Geir Hallan; Ove Nord Furnes; Alma B Pedersen; Søren Overgaard; Maziar Mohaddes
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2018-12       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Do Stem Design and Surgical Approach Influence Early Aseptic Loosening in Cementless THA?

Authors:  Loes Janssen; Karolina A P Wijnands; Dennis Janssen; Michiel W H E Janssen; Jan W Morrenhof
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2018-06       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  Effect of femoral head size on metal-on-HXLPE hip arthroplasty outcome in a combined analysis of six national and regional registries.

Authors:  Alex Allepuz; Leif Havelin; Thomas Barber; Art Sedrakyan; Stephen Graves; Barbara Bordini; Daniel Hoeffel; Guy Cafri; Elizabeth Paxton
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2014-12-17       Impact factor: 5.284

Review 4.  Application of a Causal Discovery Algorithm to the Analysis of Arthroplasty Registry Data.

Authors:  Camden Cheek; Huiyong Zheng; Brian R Hallstrom; Richard E Hughes
Journal:  Biomed Eng Comput Biol       Date:  2018-02-22

5.  Outcome in design-specific comparisons between highly crosslinked and conventional polyethylene in total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Per-Erik Johanson; Ove Furnes; Leif Ivar Havelin; Anne Marie Fenstad; Alma B Pedersen; Søren Overgaard; Göran Garellick; Keijo Mäkelä; Johan Kärrholm
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2017-04-04       Impact factor: 3.717

6.  Mid-term outcomes of uncemented or cemented arthroplasty revision following metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty failure: a retrospective observational study.

Authors:  Zhao Chen; Wenli Chen; Weiguang Yu; Mingdong Zhao; Jinluan Lin; Chaoming Zhou; Hui Chen; Junxing Ye; Xianshang Zeng; Jintao Zhuang
Journal:  J Int Med Res       Date:  2020-06       Impact factor: 1.671

7.  Have cementless and resurfacing components improved the medium-term results of hip replacement for patients under 60 years of age?

Authors:  Simon S Jameson; James Mason; Paul Baker; Paul J Gregg; Martyn Porter; David J Deehan; Mike R Reed
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2014-10-06       Impact factor: 3.717

8.  Implant Optimisation for Primary Hip Replacement in Patients over 60 Years with Osteoarthritis: A Cohort Study of Clinical Outcomes and Implant Costs Using Data from England and Wales.

Authors:  Simon S Jameson; James Mason; Paul N Baker; Paul J Gregg; David J Deehan; Mike R Reed
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-11-12       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Uncemented versus cemented total hip arthroplasty for displaced femoral neck fractures in elderly patients with osteoporosis: A retrospective analysis.

Authors:  Xiang Zhou; Meiji Chen; Weiguang Yu; Guowei Han; Junxing Ye; Jintao Zhuang
Journal:  J Int Med Res       Date:  2020-08       Impact factor: 1.671

10.  Acetabular Subchondral Bone Decortication and Its Role in the Outcome of Cemented Total Hip Replacement in Young Patients.

Authors:  Kanai Garala; Tarek Boutefnouchet; Krishanthanan Amblawaner; Gurdip Chahal; Trevor Lawrence
Journal:  Hip Pelvis       Date:  2018-09-04
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.