Literature DB >> 32876424

THA for a Fractured Femoral Neck: Comparing the Revision and Dislocation Rates of Standard-head, Large-head, Dual-mobility, and Constrained Liners.

Wayne Hoskins1,2, Xavier Griffin3,4, Alesha Hatton2,5, Richard N de Steiger6,7, Roger Bingham8.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: THA is a reasonable surgical option for some patients with fragility fractures of the femoral neck, but it has the risk of prosthesis dislocation. The prosthesis combination that reduces the risk of dislocation and the rate of revision surgery is not known. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: In patients receiving primary THA for a femoral neck fracture, does (1) the rate of all-cause revision or (2) the reason for revision and rate of revision for dislocation differ among THA with a standard head size, large head size, dual mobility (DM), or constrained liner? (3) Is there a difference in the revision risk when patients are stratified by age at the time of surgery?
METHODS: Data were analyzed for 16,692 THAs performed to treat fractures of the femoral neck reported in the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) from January 2008 to December 2018, as this included the first use of DM prostheses. The AOANJRR includes information on more than 98% of arthroplasty procedures performed in Australia. Most patients were female (72%) and the mean age was 74 years ± 11. There were 8582 standard-head prostheses, 5820 large-head prostheses, 1778 DM prostheses, and 512 constrained prostheses identified. The cumulative percent revision (CPR) was determined for all causes as well as CPR for dislocation. The time to the first revision was described using Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship, with right censoring for death or closure of the database at the time of analysis. The unadjusted CPR was estimated each year of the first 10 years for standard heads, 10 years for large heads, 8 years for constrained liners, and 7 years for DM prostheses, with 95% confidence intervals using unadjusted pointwise Greenwood estimates. The results were adjusted for age, sex, femoral fixation, and head size where appropriate and were considered by age groups < 70 and ≥ 70 years.
RESULTS: When adjusted for age, sex, femoral fixation and head size, there was no difference in the rate of all-cause revision at 7 years for any of the four groups. There was no difference in the rate of all-cause revision when patients were stratified by < 70 or ≥ 70 years of age. Dislocation was the most common reason for revision (32%). When analyzing revision for dislocation alone, large-head THA had a lower rate of revision for dislocation compared with standard head (HR 0.6 [95% CI 0.4 to 0.8]; p < 0.001) and DM prostheses had a lower rate of revision for dislocation than standard head for the first 3 months (HR 0.3 [95% CI 0.1 to 0.7]; p < 0.004) but not after this time point.
CONCLUSION: The Australian registry shows that there is no difference in the rate of all-cause revision for standard-head, large-head, DM prostheses or constrained liner THA after femoral neck fractures for all patients or for patients stratified into younger than 70 years and at least 70 years of age groups. Dislocation is the most common cause of revision. Large-head prostheses are associated with a lower revision risk for dislocation and DM prostheses have a lower rate of revision for dislocation than standard heads for the first 3 months only. Surgeons treating a femoral neck fracture with THA might consider a large head size if the diameter of the acetabulum will allow it and a DM prosthesis if a large head size is not possible. The age, life expectancy and level of function of patients with femoral neck fractures minimizes the potential long-term consequences of these prostheses. The lack of significant differences in survival between most prosthesis combinations means surgeons should continue to look for factors beyond head size and prosthesis to minimize dislocation and revision surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.
Copyright © 2020 by the Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 32876424      PMCID: PMC7899725          DOI: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000001447

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res        ISSN: 0009-921X            Impact factor:   4.755


  27 in total

1.  The use of a cemented dual mobility socket to treat recurrent dislocation.

Authors:  Moussa Hamadouche; David J Biau; Denis Huten; Thierry Musset; François Gaucher
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Hemiarthroplasty or total hip arthroplasty for the treatment of a displaced intracapsular fracture in active elderly patients: 12-year follow-up of randomised trial.

Authors:  M C J M Tol; M P J van den Bekerom; I N Sierevelt; E F Hilverdink; E L F B Raaymakers; J C Goslings
Journal:  Bone Joint J       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 5.082

3.  Dual mobility cup reduces dislocation and re-operation when used to treat displaced femoral neck fractures.

Authors:  Anne S Bensen; Thomas Jakobsen; Niels Krarup
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2014-01-18       Impact factor: 3.075

4.  The Exeter V40 cemented femoral component at a minimum 10-year follow-up: the first 540 cases.

Authors:  R W Westerman; S L Whitehouse; M J W Hubble; A J Timperley; J R Howell; M J Wilson
Journal:  Bone Joint J       Date:  2018-08       Impact factor: 5.082

5.  Dual mobility cup reduces dislocation rate after arthroplasty for femoral neck fracture.

Authors:  Sarunas Tarasevicius; Mantas Busevicius; Otto Robertsson; Hans Wingstrand
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2010-08-06       Impact factor: 2.362

6.  Results of the Evora dual-mobility socket after a minimum follow-up of five years.

Authors:  S Leclercq; J-Y Benoit; J-P de Rosa; P Euvrard; C Leteurtre; P Girardin
Journal:  Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot       Date:  2008-07-07

7.  Low rate of dislocation of dual-mobility cups in primary total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Antoine Combes; Henri Migaud; Julien Girard; Alain Duhamel; Michel Henri Fessy
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  Competing risks survival analysis applied to data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry.

Authors:  Marianne H Gillam; Philip Ryan; Stephen E Graves; Lisa N Miller; Richard N de Steiger; Amy Salter
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 3.717

9.  Inequalities in use of total hip arthroplasty for hip fracture: population based study.

Authors:  Daniel C Perry; David Metcalfe; Xavier L Griffin; Matthew L Costa
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2016-04-27

10.  Constrained captive acetabular cup for recurrent dislocation of hemiarthroplasty in elderly: A case series.

Authors:  Aysha Rajeev; Paul Banaszkiewicz
Journal:  Int J Surg Case Rep       Date:  2016-04-22
View more
  9 in total

1.  Do Dual-mobility Cups Reduce Revision Risk in Femoral Neck Fractures Compared With Conventional THA Designs? An International Meta-analysis of Arthroplasty Registries.

Authors:  John E Farey; James Masters; Alana R Cuthbert; Pernille Iversen; Liza N van Steenbergen; Heather A Prentice; Sam Adie; Adrian Sayers; Michael R Whitehouse; Elizabeth W Paxton; Matthew L Costa; Søren Overgaard; Cecilia Rogmark; Ola Rolfson; Ian A Harris
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2022-06-16       Impact factor: 4.755

2.  CORR Insights®: In Revision THA, Is the Re-revision Risk for Dislocation and Aseptic Causes Greater in Dual-mobility Constructs or Large Femoral Head Bearings? A Study from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry.

Authors:  Michael L Parks
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2022-02-04       Impact factor: 4.755

3.  In Revision THA, Is the Re-revision Risk for Dislocation and Aseptic Causes Greater in Dual-mobility Constructs or Large Femoral Head Bearings? A Study from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry.

Authors:  Wayne Hoskins; Sophia Rainbird; Chelsea Dyer; Stephen E Graves; Roger Bingham
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2022-01-03       Impact factor: 4.755

Review 4.  Total hip arthroplasty in acetabular fractures.

Authors:  Deepak Gautam; Saurabh Gupta; Rajesh Malhotra
Journal:  J Clin Orthop Trauma       Date:  2020-10-17

5.  CORR Insights®: THA for a Fractured Femoral Neck: Comparing the Revision and Dislocation Rates of Standard-head, Large-head, Dual-mobility, and Constrained Liners.

Authors:  Michael L Parks
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2021-01-01       Impact factor: 4.755

6.  Dislocation of Total Hip Replacement in Femoral Neck Fracture: Do Surgical Approach and Dual Mobility Implant Matter?

Authors:  Poornanand Goru; Syed Haque; Gopalkrishna G Verma; Abubakar Mustafa; Mostafa Hamed; Mobeen Ismail; Sanat Shah
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2022-01-08

7.  Dual mobility versus conventional total hip arthroplasty in femoral neck fractures (DISTINCT): protocol for a registry-nested, open-label, cluster-randomised crossover trial.

Authors:  John E Farey; Tamara Hooper; Tania Alland; Justine M Naylor; Thu-Lan Kelly; Michelle Lorimer; Adriane M Lewin; Margaret Rogers; Chi Kin Law; Jacqueline Close; Steven E Graves; Richard S de Steiger; Peter L Lewis; Sam Adie; Ian A Harris
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2022-09-21       Impact factor: 3.006

8.  Fragility Fracture Systems: International Perspectives - Asia & Australia.

Authors:  Seth M Tarrant; Ji Wan Kim; Takashi Matsushita; Hiroaki Minehara; Tomoyuki Noda; Jong-Keon Oh; Ki Chul Park; Noriaki Yamamoto; Zsolt J Balogh
Journal:  OTA Int       Date:  2022-06-09

Review 9.  The top fifty most influential articles on hip fractures.

Authors:  Gilbert Manuel Schwarz; Stefan Hajdu; Reinhard Windhager; Madeleine Willegger
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2022-07-23       Impact factor: 3.479

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.