Maziar Mohaddes1, Göran Garellick, Johan Kärrholm. 1. Department of Orthopaedics, Institute of Clinical Sciences, The Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, NA, 413 45, Sweden, maziar.mohaddes_ardebili@vgregion.se.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: During the last two decades, uncemented fixation has been increasingly preferred worldwide during cup revision surgery. In Sweden, the number of uncemented cup revisions has been increasing during the last decade. However, it is unclear whether the risk of rerevision differs between cemented and uncemented cups. QUESTION/PURPOSES: We determined (1) the risk of rerevision after cemented and uncemented fixation; (2) the influence of concomitant stem revision on the risk of rerevision of the cup; (3) the difference in risk of rerevision of an uncemented cup revision compared with liner revision only; and (4) whether the surgical incision influenced the risk of rerevision. METHODS: Between 1979 and 2010, 19,342 first-time cup revisions were reported to the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. From these, 749 were excluded (hip resurfacing, cases with tumor diagnoses, and missing data) leaving 18,593 (73% cemented) for further analysis. We used a Cox regression model adjusted for age, sex, primary diagnosis, method of fixation, concomitant stem revision, and cemented/uncemented fixation to assess risk of rerevision. RESULTS: The relative risk for rerevision for any reason did not differ between cemented and uncemented fixation (relative risk [RR], 0.94). If the stem was not revised at index revision, the risk of further cup revision increased twofold (RR, 1.91). Liner revisions were associated with a 70% increased risk for rerevision of the cup as a result of any reason and especially because of dislocation (RR, 2.94). The surgical incision did not influence the overall risk for rerevision (direct lateral/posterolateral: RR, 1.02) or the risk of rerevision resulting from dislocation (RR, 0.91). CONCLUSIONS: We found no difference in the overall risk of rerevision between cemented and uncemented fixation. Liner exchange had a higher risk for rerevision when compared with cases being rerevised with a new uncemented cup.
BACKGROUND: During the last two decades, uncemented fixation has been increasingly preferred worldwide during cup revision surgery. In Sweden, the number of uncemented cup revisions has been increasing during the last decade. However, it is unclear whether the risk of rerevision differs between cemented and uncemented cups. QUESTION/PURPOSES: We determined (1) the risk of rerevision after cemented and uncemented fixation; (2) the influence of concomitant stem revision on the risk of rerevision of the cup; (3) the difference in risk of rerevision of an uncemented cup revision compared with liner revision only; and (4) whether the surgical incision influenced the risk of rerevision. METHODS: Between 1979 and 2010, 19,342 first-time cup revisions were reported to the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. From these, 749 were excluded (hip resurfacing, cases with tumor diagnoses, and missing data) leaving 18,593 (73% cemented) for further analysis. We used a Cox regression model adjusted for age, sex, primary diagnosis, method of fixation, concomitant stem revision, and cemented/uncemented fixation to assess risk of rerevision. RESULTS: The relative risk for rerevision for any reason did not differ between cemented and uncemented fixation (relative risk [RR], 0.94). If the stem was not revised at index revision, the risk of further cup revision increased twofold (RR, 1.91). Liner revisions were associated with a 70% increased risk for rerevision of the cup as a result of any reason and especially because of dislocation (RR, 2.94). The surgical incision did not influence the overall risk for rerevision (direct lateral/posterolateral: RR, 1.02) or the risk of rerevision resulting from dislocation (RR, 0.91). CONCLUSIONS: We found no difference in the overall risk of rerevision between cemented and uncemented fixation. Liner exchange had a higher risk for rerevision when compared with cases being rerevised with a new uncemented cup.
Authors: P M Pellicci; P D Wilson; C B Sledge; E A Salvati; C S Ranawat; R Poss; J J Callaghan Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 1985-04 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Paul E Beaulé; Edward Ebramzadeh; Michel Le Duff; Rajiv Prasad; Harlan C Amstutz Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Inari Laaksonen; Michelle Lorimer; Kirill Gromov; Ola Rolfson; Keijo T Mäkelä; Stephen E Graves; Henrik Malchau; Maziar Mohaddes Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2017-06-23 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Peter Cnudde; Ola Rolfson; A John Timperley; Anne Garland; Johan Kärrholm; Göran Garellick; Szilard Nemes Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2018-06 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Peter Cnudde; Szilard Nemes; Maziar Mohaddes; John Timperley; Göran Garellick; Kristina Burström; Ola Rolfson Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2017-08-10 Impact factor: 3.390