Dennis S M G Kruijntjens1, Sander M J van Kuijk2, Liza N van Steenbergen3, Liesbeth M C Jutten1, J J Chris Arts1, René H M Ten Broeke1. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Research School Caphri, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 3. Dutch Arthroplasty Register (Landelijke Registratie Orthopedische Implantaten), 's Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands.
Abstract
AIMS: Previous studies have already shown early proximal ingrowth, fast osseous integration, and a stable fit of the uncemented Symax hip stem, with excellent clinical and radiographic performance. Aims were to evaluate cumulative revision rates and reasons for revision of the Symax hip stem using Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI) data and to assess possible associations between patient characteristics and revision rate of the Symax hip stem. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All total hip arthroplasties with the uncemented Symax hip stem registered in the LROI between 2007 and 2017 were included (n = 5,013). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed to assess the cumulative 1, 5 and 7-year revision percentages. Cox proportional hazard regression analysis was performed to assess the association between patient and procedural characteristics, and revision arthroplasty of the stem. RESULTS: Cumulative 1, 5, and 7-year revision rates (with 95% confidence interval (CI)) for revision of any component were 1.5% (CI 1.2%-1.8%), 3.2% (CI 2.7%-3.7%), and 3.8% (CI 3.1%-4.4%) respectively. Cumulative 1, 5, and 7-year stem revision rates of the Symax hip stem were 0.9% (CI 0.6%-1.1%), 1.5% (CI 1.1%-1.9%), and 1.7% (CI 1.3%-2.1%) respectively. Periprosthetic fractures (n = 35) and loosening of the stem (n = 30) were the most common reasons for revision of the stem. Revision of the stem was associated with acute fracture as primary diagnosis (Hazard Ratio (HR) 2.4 (CI 1.3-4.3)), or history of a previous surgery to the affected hip (HR 2.7 (CI 1.4-5.2)). CONCLUSION: This population-based registry study shows revision rates for the Symax hip stem comparable to those for best performing uncemented total hip arthroplasties in the Netherlands. Primary diagnosis of an acute fracture, and history of previous surgery on the affected hip, were significantly associated risk factors for revision of the Symax hip stem, and we discourage the use of the Symax hip stem in these patients.
AIMS: Previous studies have already shown early proximal ingrowth, fast osseous integration, and a stable fit of the uncemented Symax hip stem, with excellent clinical and radiographic performance. Aims were to evaluate cumulative revision rates and reasons for revision of the Symax hip stem using Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI) data and to assess possible associations between patient characteristics and revision rate of the Symax hip stem. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All total hip arthroplasties with the uncemented Symax hip stem registered in the LROI between 2007 and 2017 were included (n = 5,013). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed to assess the cumulative 1, 5 and 7-year revision percentages. Cox proportional hazard regression analysis was performed to assess the association between patient and procedural characteristics, and revision arthroplasty of the stem. RESULTS: Cumulative 1, 5, and 7-year revision rates (with 95% confidence interval (CI)) for revision of any component were 1.5% (CI 1.2%-1.8%), 3.2% (CI 2.7%-3.7%), and 3.8% (CI 3.1%-4.4%) respectively. Cumulative 1, 5, and 7-year stem revision rates of the Symax hip stem were 0.9% (CI 0.6%-1.1%), 1.5% (CI 1.1%-1.9%), and 1.7% (CI 1.3%-2.1%) respectively. Periprosthetic fractures (n = 35) and loosening of the stem (n = 30) were the most common reasons for revision of the stem. Revision of the stem was associated with acute fracture as primary diagnosis (Hazard Ratio (HR) 2.4 (CI 1.3-4.3)), or history of a previous surgery to the affected hip (HR 2.7 (CI 1.4-5.2)). CONCLUSION: This population-based registry study shows revision rates for the Symax hip stem comparable to those for best performing uncemented total hip arthroplasties in the Netherlands. Primary diagnosis of an acute fracture, and history of previous surgery on the affected hip, were significantly associated risk factors for revision of the Symax hip stem, and we discourage the use of the Symax hip stem in these patients.
Authors: Michael J Bercik; Adam G Miller; Matthew Muffly; Javad Parvizi; Fabio Orozco; Alvin Ong Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2012-05-24 Impact factor: 4.757
Authors: René H M ten Broeke; Maria Tarala; Jacobus J Arts; Dennis W Janssen; Nico Verdonschot; Rudolph G T Geesink Journal: Med Eng Phys Date: 2013-12-27 Impact factor: 2.242
Authors: William N Capello; James A D'Antonio; Rudolph G Geesink; Judy R Feinberg; Marybeth Naughton Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2008-10-11 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Martin Lindberg-Larsen; Christoffer C Jørgensen; Søren Solgaard; Anne G Kjersgaard; Henrik Kehlet Journal: Acta Orthop Date: 2017-03-14 Impact factor: 3.717
Authors: René H M ten Broeke; Roel P M Hendrickx; Pieter Leffers; Liesbeth M C Jutten; Rudolph G T Geesink Journal: Hip Int Date: 2012 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.135
Authors: Dennis S M G Kruijntjens; Lennard Koster; Bart L Kaptein; Liesbeth M C Jutten; Jacobus J Arts; René H M Ten Broeke Journal: Acta Orthop Date: 2020-01-13 Impact factor: 3.717