U Brulc1, V Antolič1, B Mavčič2. 1. University Medical Centre Ljubljana and Faculty of Medicine, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Zaloška cesta 9, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia. 2. University Medical Centre Ljubljana and Faculty of Medicine, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Zaloška cesta 9, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia. Electronic address: blaz.mavcic@kclj.si.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Surgeon at primary total hip arthroplasty sometimes cannot achieve sufficient cementless acetabular press-fit fixation and must resort to other fixation methods. Despite a predominant use of cementless cups, this issue is not fully clarified, therefore we performed a large retrospective study to: (1) identify risk factors related to patient or implant or surgeon for unsuccessful intraoperative press-fit; (2) check for correlation between surgeons' volume of operated cases and the press-fit success rate. HYPOTHESIS: Unsuccessful intra-operative press-fit more often occurs in older female patients, particular implants, due to learning curve and low-volume surgeons. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective observational cohort of prospectively collected intraoperative data (2009-2016) included all primary total hip arthroplasty patients with implant brands that offered acetabular press-fit fixation only. Press-fit was considered successful if acetabulum was of the same implant brand as the femoral component without additional screws or cement. Logistic regression models for unsuccessful acetabular press-fit included patients' gender/age/operated side, implant, surgeon, approach (posterior n=1206, direct-lateral n=871) and surgery date (i.e. learning curve). RESULTS: In 2077 patients (mean 65.5 years, 1093 females, 1163 right hips), three different implant brands (973 ABG-II™-Stryker, 646 EcoFit™ Implantcast, 458 Procotyl™ L-Wright) were implanted by eight surgeons. Their unsuccessful press-fit fixation rates ranged from 3.5% to 23.7%. Older age (odds ratio 1.01 [95% CI: 0.99-1.02]), female gender (2.87 [95% CI: 2.11-3.91]), right side (1.44 [95% CI: 1.08-1.92]), surgery date (0.90 [95% CI: 1.08-1.92]) and particular implants were significant risk factors only in three surgeons with less successful surgical technique (higher rates of unsuccessful press-fit with Procotyl™-L and EcoFit™ [P=0.01]). Direct-lateral hip approach had a lower rate of unsuccessful press-fit than posterior hip approach (P<0.01), but there was no correlation between surgeons' volume and rate of successful press-fit (Spearman's rho=0.10, P=0.82). Subcohort of 961 patients with 5-7-years follow-up indicated higher early/late cup revision rates with unsuccessful press-fit. DISCUSSION: Success of press-fit fixation depends entirely on the surgeon and surgical approach. With proper operative technique, the unsuccessful press-fit fixation rate should be below 5% and the impact of patients' characteristics or implants on press-fit fixation is then insignificant. Findings of huge variability in operative technique between surgeons of the presented study emphasize the need for surgeon-specific data stratification in arthroplasty studies and indicate the possibility of false attribution of clinically observed phenomena to patient-related factors in pooled data of large centers or hip arthroplasty registers. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective observational case control study.
BACKGROUND: Surgeon at primary total hip arthroplasty sometimes cannot achieve sufficient cementless acetabular press-fit fixation and must resort to other fixation methods. Despite a predominant use of cementless cups, this issue is not fully clarified, therefore we performed a large retrospective study to: (1) identify risk factors related to patient or implant or surgeon for unsuccessful intraoperative press-fit; (2) check for correlation between surgeons' volume of operated cases and the press-fit success rate. HYPOTHESIS: Unsuccessful intra-operative press-fit more often occurs in older female patients, particular implants, due to learning curve and low-volume surgeons. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective observational cohort of prospectively collected intraoperative data (2009-2016) included all primary total hip arthroplastypatients with implant brands that offered acetabular press-fit fixation only. Press-fit was considered successful if acetabulum was of the same implant brand as the femoral component without additional screws or cement. Logistic regression models for unsuccessful acetabular press-fit included patients' gender/age/operated side, implant, surgeon, approach (posterior n=1206, direct-lateral n=871) and surgery date (i.e. learning curve). RESULTS: In 2077 patients (mean 65.5 years, 1093 females, 1163 right hips), three different implant brands (973 ABG-II™-Stryker, 646 EcoFit™ Implantcast, 458 Procotyl™ L-Wright) were implanted by eight surgeons. Their unsuccessful press-fit fixation rates ranged from 3.5% to 23.7%. Older age (odds ratio 1.01 [95% CI: 0.99-1.02]), female gender (2.87 [95% CI: 2.11-3.91]), right side (1.44 [95% CI: 1.08-1.92]), surgery date (0.90 [95% CI: 1.08-1.92]) and particular implants were significant risk factors only in three surgeons with less successful surgical technique (higher rates of unsuccessful press-fit with Procotyl™-L and EcoFit™ [P=0.01]). Direct-lateral hip approach had a lower rate of unsuccessful press-fit than posterior hip approach (P<0.01), but there was no correlation between surgeons' volume and rate of successful press-fit (Spearman's rho=0.10, P=0.82). Subcohort of 961 patients with 5-7-years follow-up indicated higher early/late cup revision rates with unsuccessful press-fit. DISCUSSION: Success of press-fit fixation depends entirely on the surgeon and surgical approach. With proper operative technique, the unsuccessful press-fit fixation rate should be below 5% and the impact of patients' characteristics or implants on press-fit fixation is then insignificant. Findings of huge variability in operative technique between surgeons of the presented study emphasize the need for surgeon-specific data stratification in arthroplasty studies and indicate the possibility of false attribution of clinically observed phenomena to patient-related factors in pooled data of large centers or hip arthroplasty registers. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective observational case control study.