BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Population-based register data from the National Joint Register of Australia and England and Wales have revealed that the mid-term outcome of cementless large diameter head metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty is inferior to that of conventional cemented metal-on-polyethylene total hip arthroplasty. The aim of this study was to compare the results of cementless large diameter head metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty with conventional cemented arthroplasty in Finland. The second aim of this study was to compare the cementless large diameter head metal-on-metal models with each other. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Based on the data extracted from the Finnish Arthroplasty Register, the risk of revision of 8059 cementless large diameter head metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasties performed during 2002-2009 was analyzed using Cox regression model. The revision risk of these hips was compared to that of 16,978 cemented metal-on-polyethylene total hip arthroplasties performed during the same time period. RESULTS: In the Cox regression analysis, there was no difference in revision risks between cementless large diameter head metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty and cemented metal-on-polyethylene total hip arthroplasty (relative risk = 0.90, confidence interval = 0.74-1.10, p = 0.3). However, in female patients aged 55 years or above, cementless large diameter head metal-on-metal total hip replacements showed a significantly increased risk of revision as compared to cemented total hip replacements (relative risk = 1.33, confidence interval = 1.04-1.70). Compared to the reference implant in this study (cementless Synergy stem combined with Birmingham Hip Resurfacing [BHR] cup), the CementLess Spotorno (CLS) stem combined with Durom cup had a 2.9-fold (95% confidence interval = 1.17-6.90) increased risk of revision. CONCLUSIONS: We found that cementless large diameter head metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty had short-term survivorship compared with cemented total hip arthroplasty at a nation-wide level. However, in female patients aged 55 years or above, cementless large diameter head metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty showed inferior results. Furthermore, implant design had an influence on revision rates. Longer follow-up time is needed to assess the success of large diameter head metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Population-based register data from the National Joint Register of Australia and England and Wales have revealed that the mid-term outcome of cementless large diameter head metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty is inferior to that of conventional cemented metal-on-polyethylene total hip arthroplasty. The aim of this study was to compare the results of cementless large diameter head metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty with conventional cemented arthroplasty in Finland. The second aim of this study was to compare the cementless large diameter head metal-on-metal models with each other. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Based on the data extracted from the Finnish Arthroplasty Register, the risk of revision of 8059 cementless large diameter head metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasties performed during 2002-2009 was analyzed using Cox regression model. The revision risk of these hips was compared to that of 16,978 cemented metal-on-polyethylene total hip arthroplasties performed during the same time period. RESULTS: In the Cox regression analysis, there was no difference in revision risks between cementless large diameter head metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty and cemented metal-on-polyethylene total hip arthroplasty (relative risk = 0.90, confidence interval = 0.74-1.10, p = 0.3). However, in female patients aged 55 years or above, cementless large diameter head metal-on-metal total hip replacements showed a significantly increased risk of revision as compared to cemented total hip replacements (relative risk = 1.33, confidence interval = 1.04-1.70). Compared to the reference implant in this study (cementless Synergy stem combined with Birmingham Hip Resurfacing [BHR] cup), the CementLess Spotorno (CLS) stem combined with Durom cup had a 2.9-fold (95% confidence interval = 1.17-6.90) increased risk of revision. CONCLUSIONS: We found that cementless large diameter head metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty had short-term survivorship compared with cemented total hip arthroplasty at a nation-wide level. However, in female patients aged 55 years or above, cementless large diameter head metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty showed inferior results. Furthermore, implant design had an influence on revision rates. Longer follow-up time is needed to assess the success of large diameter head metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty.
Entities:
Keywords:
Total hip arthroplasty; complications; large heads; metal-on-metal; register study; revision risk
Authors: Adolph V Lombardi; Keith R Berend; Michael J Morris; Joanne B Adams; Michael A Sneller Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2014-11-04 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Matti Seppänen; Inari Laaksonen; Pekka Pulkkinen; Antti Eskelinen; Ari-Pekka Puhto; Jukka Kettunen; Jarkko Leskinen; Mikko Manninen; Keijo Mäkelä Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2018-06 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Inari Kostensalo; Mika Junnila; Petri Virolainen; Ville Remes; Markus Matilainen; Tero Vahlberg; Pekka Pulkkinen; Antti Eskelinen; Keijo T Mäkelä Journal: Acta Orthop Date: 2013-06-25 Impact factor: 3.717
Authors: Claus Varnum; Alma B Pedersen; Keijo Mäkelä; Antti Eskelinen; Leif Ivar Havelin; Ove Furnes; Johan Kärrholm; Göran Garellick; Søren Overgaard Journal: Acta Orthop Date: 2015-02-26 Impact factor: 3.717
Authors: Jari Mokka; Mika Junnila; Matti Seppänen; Petri Virolainen; Tuukka Pölönen; Tero Vahlberg; Kimmo Mattila; Esa K J Tuominen; Juho Rantakokko; Ville Aärimaa; Juha Kukkonen; Keijo T Mäkelä Journal: Acta Orthop Date: 2013-10-31 Impact factor: 3.717