Literature DB >> 29504054

Higher prevalence of periprosthetic fractures with ceramic on polyethylene hip bearing compared with ceramic on ceramic on the contralateral side: a forty year experience with hip osteonecrosis.

Philippe Hernigou1, Jean Charles Auregan2, Claire Bastard3, Victor Housset3, Charles Henri Flouzat-Lachaniette3, Arnaud Dubory3.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: It is unclear whether late THA periprosthetic femoral fractures are related to a mechanical mechanism that decreases strength of the femur (for example, loosening) or to a biological problem as osteolysis. It is also unknown if ceramic on ceramic bearing couples decrease the risk of late periprosthetic fractures as a result of the absence of wear and osteolysis.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: We therefore asked whether the cumulative long-term fractures were different according to the couple of friction ceramic on ceramic or ceramic on polyethylene in 327 patients (654 hips) with bilateral THA (one ceramic-ceramic, and the contralateral ceramic-polyethylene) who had THA with cemented stems performed between from 1978 to 2000 for osteonecrosis.
RESULTS: There were two intra-operative fractures (0.3%). The median follow-up was 22 years (range, 15-40 years), and at the most recent follow-up, the cumulative number of late (after 7 years of follow-up) post-operative fractures was 32 (5% of 654 hips). Fractures were unilateral, which means for the 327 patients, a 10% rate of fractures. Periprosthetic fractures increased in number with follow-up: seven fractures (1% of 654 hips) occurred within ten years of THA implantation, 20 (3%) within 20 years, 26 (4%) within 30 years, and 32 (5%) within 40 years. The risk of fracture was influenced (p < 0.001) by the bearing surfaces at the time of prosthetic implantation, low (0.3%) for ceramic on ceramic (1/32 fractures; 1/327 hips), high (10%) for ceramic on PE (31/32 fractures; 31/327 hips).
CONCLUSION: In summary, when the contralateral hip of the same patient is the control, after 40 years of follow-up, post-operative fractures occur 30 times more often on the side with PE cup than on the side with ceramic/ceramic bearing.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bearing surface; Ceramic on ceramic; Ceramic on polyethylene; Hip friction; Hip osteonecrosis; Periprosthetic fracture

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29504054     DOI: 10.1007/s00264-018-3863-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Orthop        ISSN: 0341-2695            Impact factor:   3.075


  14 in total

Review 1.  Management of periprosthetic femoral fractures following total hip arthroplasty: a review.

Authors:  Matthew P Abdel; Umberto Cottino; Tad M Mabry
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2015-08-29       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 2.  Incidence and predisposing factors of periprosthetic proximal femoral fractures: a literature review.

Authors:  Claudia C Sidler-Maier; James P Waddell
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2015-03-27       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 3.  Periprosthetic fractures: concepts of biomechanical in vitro investigations.

Authors:  Eike Jakubowitz; Jörn Bengt Seeger
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2015-08-21       Impact factor: 3.075

4.  The excess mortality due to periprosthetic femur fracture. A study from the Swedish national hip arthroplasty register.

Authors:  H Lindahl; A Oden; G Garellick; H Malchau
Journal:  Bone       Date:  2007-01-18       Impact factor: 4.398

5.  Periprosthetic femoral fractures classification and demographics of 1049 periprosthetic femoral fractures from the Swedish National Hip Arthroplasty Register.

Authors:  Hans Lindahl; Henrik Malchau; Peter Herberts; Göran Garellick
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 4.757

Review 6.  Epidemiology of periprosthetic femur fracture around a total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Hans Lindahl
Journal:  Injury       Date:  2007-05-02       Impact factor: 2.586

7.  Ceramic-ceramic bearing decreases osteolysis: a 20-year study versus ceramic-polyethylene on the contralateral hip.

Authors:  Philippe Hernigou; Sebastien Zilber; Paolo Filippini; Alexandre Poignard
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2009-03-13       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  Risk factors for periprosthetic fractures of the hip: a survivorship analysis.

Authors:  R E Cook; P J Jenkins; P J Walmsley; J T Patton; C M Robinson
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2008-05-10       Impact factor: 4.176

9.  Vancouver type B2 and B3 periprosthetic fractures treated with revision total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Tomas Amenabar; Wael A Rahman; Vineet V Avhad; Ramiro Vera; Allan E Gross; Paul R Kuzyk
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2015-08-25       Impact factor: 3.075

10.  Epidemiology of periprosthetic fracture of the femur in 32 644 primary total hip arthroplasties: a 40-year experience.

Authors:  M P Abdel; C D Watts; M T Houdek; D G Lewallen; D J Berry
Journal:  Bone Joint J       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 5.082

View more
  3 in total

1.  Hip osteonecrosis: stem cells for life or behead and arthroplasty?

Authors:  Philippe Hernigou; Gildasio Daltro; Jacques Hernigou
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2018-06-08       Impact factor: 3.075

2.  Stem cell therapy in bilateral osteonecrosis: computer-assisted surgery versus conventional fluoroscopic technique on the contralateral side.

Authors:  Philippe Hernigou; Benjamin Thiebaut; Victor Housset; Claire Bastard; Yasuhiro Homma; Younes Chaib; Charles Henri Flouzat Lachaniette
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2018-04-26       Impact factor: 3.075

3.  The impact of polyethylene abrasion on the occurrence of periprosthetic proximal femoral fractures in patients with total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Dirk Zajonz; Nora Lang; Cathleen Pönick; Melanie Edel; Robert Möbius; Harald Busse; Christoph Josten; Andreas Roth; Johannes K M Fakler
Journal:  Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg       Date:  2019-09-13       Impact factor: 3.693

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.