BackgroundA number of surgical approaches are available for total hip arthroplasty (THA), but there are limited large-volume, multi-surgeon data comparing the rates of early revisions following these ...approaches. The aim of this study was to compare the rate of revision of primary conventional THA related to surgical approach.MethodsData from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry were analyzed for all patients who had undergone a primary THA for osteoarthritis from January 2015 to December 2018. The primary outcome measure was the cumulative percent revision (CPR) for all causes. Secondary outcome measures were major revision (a revision procedure requiring change of the acetabular and/or femoral component) and revision for specific diagnosesfracture, component loosening, infection, and dislocation. Age, sex, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, femoral head size, and femoral fixation were assessed as potential confounders.ResultsThere was a total of 122,345 primary conventional THAs for which the surgical approach was recorded in the registry; 65,791 were posterior, 24,468 were lateral, and 32,086 were anterior. There was no difference in the overall CPR among approaches, but the anterior approach was associated with a higher rate of major revisions. There were differences among the approaches with regard to the types of revision. When adjusted for age, sex, ASA score, BMI, femoral head size, and femoral fixation, the anterior approach was associated with a higher rate of femoral complications—i.e., revision for periprosthetic fracture and femoral loosening. There was a lower rate of revision for infection after the anterior approach compared with the posterior approach in the entire period, and compared with the lateral approach in the first 3 months. The posterior approach was associated with a higher rate of revision for dislocation compared with both the anterior and the lateral approach in all time periods. The anterior approach was associated with a lower rate of revision compared with the lateral approach in the first 6 months only.ConclusionsThere was no difference in the overall early CPR among the surgical approaches, but the anterior approach was associated with a higher rate of early major revisions and femoral complications (revisions for periprosthetic fracture and femoral loosening) compared with the posterior and lateral approaches and with a lower rate of dislocation and infection.Level of EvidenceTherapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
BACKGROUND:Computer navigation for total knee arthroplasty has improved alignment compared with that resulting from non-navigated total knee arthroplasty. This study analyzed data from the Australian ...Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry to examine the effect of computer navigation on the rate of revision of primary total knee arthroplasty.
METHODS:The cumulative percent revision following all non-navigated and navigated primary total knee arthroplasties performed in Australia from January 1, 2003, to December 31, 2012, was assessed. In addition, the type of and reason for revision as well as the effect of age, surgeon volume, and use of cement for the prosthesis were examined. Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship were used to describe the time to first revision. Hazard ratios (HRs) from Cox proportional hazards models, with adjustment for age and sex, were used to compare revision rates.
RESULTS:Computer navigation was used in 44,573 (14.1% of all) primary total knee arthroplasties, and the rate of its use increased from 2.4% in 2003 to 22.8% in 2012. Overall, the cumulative percent revision following non-navigated total knee arthroplasty at nine years was 5.2% (95% confidence interval CI = 5.1 to 5.4) compared with 4.6% (95% CI = 4.2 to 5.1) for computer-navigated total knee arthroplasty (HR = 1.05 95% CI = 0.98 to 1.12, p = 0.15). There was a significant difference in the rate of revision following non-navigated total knee arthroplasty compared with that following navigated total knee arthroplasty for younger patients (HR = 1.13 95% CI = 1.03 to 1.25, p = 0.011). Patients less than sixty-five years of age who had undergone non-navigated total knee arthroplasty had a cumulative percent revision of 7.8% (95% CI = 7.5 to 8.2) at nine years compared with 6.3% (95% CI = 5.5 to 7.3) for those who had undergone navigated total knee arthroplasty. Computer navigation led to a significant reduction in the rate of revision due to loosening/lysis (HR = 1.38 95% CI = 1.13 to 1.67, p = 0.001), which is the most common reason for revision of total knee arthroplasty.
CONCLUSIONS:Computer navigation reduced the overall rate of revision and the rate revision for loosening/lysis following total knee arthroplasty in patients less than sixty-five years of age.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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 III, therapeutic study.
BACKGROUND:Dislocation remains a leading cause of revision following primary and revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). The aim of the present study was to compare the rate of second revision THA ...following a major first revision for the treatment of dislocation using an implant with a standard, large head, dual-mobility, or constrained acetabular liner.
METHODS:Data were obtained from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry from September 1999 through December 2018. All primary THAs that had been performed for the treatment of osteoarthritis and subsequently revised for dislocation were included. All revision THA prostheses with a standard head (≤32 mm), large head (≥36 mm), dual-mobility, or constrained acetabular liner that were used for the first revision procedure were identified. The primary outcome measures were the cumulative rates of second revisions for all causes and for a subsequent diagnosis of dislocation for the 4 different constructs used in the first revision.
RESULTS:A total of 1,275 hips underwent a major first revision because of prosthesis dislocation, with 203 of these hips going on to have a second revision. The rate of all-cause second revision was significantly higher in the standard-head group compared with the constrained-acetabular-liner group (hazard ratio HR, 1.53 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.01 to 2.30; p = 0.044). There was no difference in the rates of revision between other articulations. The most common cause of second revision for all implants was dislocation. There were a total of 91 second revisions for a diagnosis of dislocation. Standard heads had a higher rate of second revision compared with constrained acetabular liners (HR, 2.44 95% CI, 1.30 to 4.60; p = 0.005), dual-mobility implants (HR, 2.04 95% CI, 1.03 to 4.01; p = 0.039), and large heads (HR, 1.80 95% CI, 1.09, 2.99; p = 0.022). There was no difference in the rates of second revision between other articulations.
CONCLUSIONS:Surgeons have a number of options for prostheses when performing a first revision for the treatment of dislocation following a primary THA. The most common cause of a second revision is recurrent dislocation. The use of constrained acetabular liners, dual-mobility liners, and large heads (≥36 mm) are options for reducing subsequent dislocation. Standard head sizes have a higher rate of second revision for further dislocation.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
The Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) prosthesis is the most commonly used metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty device. The current manufacturer-recommended target demographic for the BHR is ...male patients, younger than 65 years requiring a femoral head size of ≥ 50 mm. Female patients, older patients, and individuals with smaller femoral-head diameter (≤ 50 mm) are known to have higher revision rates. Prior studies suggest that the survivorship of the BHR when used in the target demographic is comparable with that of primary conventional THA, but comparing survivorship of the most durable hip resurfacing arthroplasty device to the survivorship of all conventional THA prostheses is not ideal because the THA group comprises a large number of different types of prostheses that have considerable variation in prosthesis survival. A more informative comparison would be with the THA implants with the best survivorship, as this might help address the question of whether survivorship in the BHR target population can be improved by using a well-performing conventional THA.
We compared the difference in cumulative percent revision, reasons for revision and types of revision for procedures reported to the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) using the BHR prosthesis (femoral-head size > 50 mm) and three conventional THA prostheses identified as having the lowest 10-year cumulative percent revision in the currently recommended BHR target population to ask: (1) Does the BHR have a lower cumulative revision rate than the group of three conventional THA prostheses? (2) Is there a difference in the revision diagnosis between the BHR and the three best conventional THA prostheses? (3) What is the difference in the components used for a revision of a BHR compared with the three best conventional THA prostheses?
Data reported to the AOANJRR between September 1, 1999 and December 31, 2018 was used for this analysis. This study period includes almost the entire use of the BHR in Australia. The AOANJRR is a large national joint registry with almost 100% completeness, high accuracy, rigorous validation, and little to no loss to follow-up. The study population included males younger than 65 years that had received one hip replacement procedure for osteoarthritis. All patients with bilateral procedures, no matter the time interval between hips, were excluded. Only BHR prostheses with a femoral-head size ≥ 50 mm and conventional THA prostheses with femoral head sizes ≥ 32 mm and either ceramic-on-ceramic or metal, ceramic, ceramicized metal-on-crosslinked polyethylene (XLPE) bearings were included. These femoral head sizes and bearings were selected because they reflect modern conventional THA practice. There is no difference in the revision rate of these bearings in the AOANJRR. There were 4790 BHR procedures and 2696 conventional THA procedures in the study group. The mean (± SD) age for BHR procedures was 52 ± 7.8 years and 56 ± 7.1 years for conventional THA procedures. All comparative analyses were adjusted for age. Other demographics data including American Society Anesthesiologists (ASA) score and BMI were only included in AOANJRR data collection since 2012 and 2015, respectively, and have not been included in this analysis because of the low use of BHR in Australia since that time. The maximum follow-up was 18.7 years for both groups and mean follow-up of 11.9 years for the BHR and 9.3 years for the conventional THA group. Revision rates were determined using Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship to describe the time to the first revision, with censoring at the time of death or closure of the database at the time of analysis. A revision was defined as removal, replacement or addition of any component of a joint replacement. Revisions can be further classified as major revisions (removal of a component articulating with bone-usually the stem and/or the shell) or minor revisions (removal of other components-usually the head and/or the liner). The unadjusted cumulative percent revision after the primary arthroplasty (with 95% confidence intervals) was calculated and compared using Cox proportional hazard models adjusted for age.
The BHR prosthesis had a statistically higher rate of all-cause revision at 17 years than the selected conventional THA prostheses (HR 2.77 95% CI 1.78 to 4.32; p < 0.001). The revision diagnoses differed between the groups, with the BHR demonstrating a higher revision rate for loosening after 2 years than the conventional THA protheses (HR 4.64 95% CI 1.66 to 12.97; p = 0.003), as well as a higher fracture rate during the entire period (HR 2.57 95% CI 1.24 to 5.33; p = 0.01). There was a lower revision rate for infection for the BHR compared with the THA group in the first 5 years, with no difference between the two groups after this time. All revisions of the BHR were major revisions (such as, removal or exchange of the femoral and/or acetabular components) and this occurred in 4.5% of the primary BHR procedures. Major revision was the most common type of revision for primary THA accounting for 1.7% of all primary THA procedures. Minor revisions (head, inset or both) were undertaken in a further 0.6% of primary THA procedures.
Given the increasing revision risk of the BHR compared with better-performing conventional THA prostheses in the target population, we recommend that patients be counseled about this risk. We suggest that a THA with proven low revision rates might be the better choice, particularly for patients who are concerned about implant durability. Well-controlled prospective studies that show appreciable clinically important differences in patient-reported outcomes and functional results favoring the BHR over conventional THA prostheses using modern bearings are needed to justify the use of the BHR in view of this revision risk.
Level III, therapeutic study.
Appropriate soft tissue tension in total knee replacement (TKR) is an important factor for a successful outcome. The purpose of our study was to assess both the reproducibility of a modern ...intraoperative pressure sensor (IOP) and if a surgeon could unconsciously influence measurement. A consecutive series of 80 TKRs were assessed with an IOP between January 2018 and December 2020. In the first scenario, two blinded sequential measurements in 48 patients were taken; in a second scenario, an initial blinded measurement and a subsequent unblinded measurement in 32 patients were taken while looking at the sensor monitor screen. Reproducibility was assessed by intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). In the first scenario, the ICC ranged from 0.83 to 0.90, and in the second scenario it ranged from 0.80 to 0.90. All ICCs were 0.80 or higher, indicating reproducibility using a IOP and that a surgeon may not unconsciously influence the measurement. The use of a modern IOP to measure soft tissue tension in TKRs is a reproducible technique. A surgeon observing the measurements while performing IOP may not significantly influence the result. An IOP gives additional information that the surgeon can use to optimize outcomes in TKR.
Full text
Available for:
IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, UL, UM, UPUK
Joint arthroplasty registries traditionally report survivorship outcomes mainly on primary joint arthroplasty. The outcome of first revision procedures is less commonly reported, because large ...numbers of primary procedures are required to analyze a sufficient number of first revision procedures. Additionally, adequate linkage of primary procedures to revisions and mortality is required. When undertaking revision hip surgery, it is important for surgeons to understand the outcomes of these procedures to better inform patients.
Using data from a large national joint registry, we asked: (1) What is the overall rate of revision of the first aseptic revision procedure for a primary THA? (2) Does the rate of revision of the first revision vary by the diagnosis for the first revision? (3) What is the mortality after the first revision, and does it vary by the reason for first revision?
The Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry longitudinally maintains data on all primary and revision joint arthroplasties, with nearly 100% capture. The analyses for this study were performed on primary THA procedures in patients with a diagnosis of osteoarthritis up to December 31, 2020, who had undergone subsequent revision. We excluded all primary THAs involving metal-on-metal and ceramic-on-metal bearing surfaces and prostheses with exchangeable necks because these designs may have particular issues associated with revisions, such as extensive soft tissue destruction, that are not seen with conventional bearings, making a comparative analysis of the first revision involving these bearing surfaces more complicated. Metal-on-metal bearing surfaces have not been used in Australia since 2017. We identified 17,046 first revision procedures from the above study population and after exclusions, included 13,713 first revision procedures in the analyses. The mean age at the first revision was 71 ± 11 years, and 55% (7496 of 13,713) of the patients were women. The median (IQR) time from the primary procedure to the first revision was 3 years (0.3 to 7.3), ranging from 0.8 years for the diagnosis of dislocation and instability to 10 years for osteolysis. There was some variation depending on the reason for the first revision. For example, patients undergoing revision for fracture were slightly older (mean age 76 ± 11 years) and patients undergoing revision for dislocation were more likely to be women (61% 2213 of 3620). The registry has endeavored to standardize the sequence of revisions and uses a numerical approach to describe revision procedures. The first revision is the revision of a primary procedure, the second revision is the revision of the first revision, and so on. We therefore described the outcome of the first revision as the cumulative percent second revision. The outcome measure was the cumulative percent revision, which was defined using Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship to describe the time to the second revision. Hazard ratios from Cox proportional hazards models, adjusting for age and gender, were performed to compare the revision rates among groups. When possible, the cumulative percent second revision at the longest follow-up timepoint was determined with the available data, and when there were insufficient numbers, we used appropriate earlier time periods.
The cumulative percent second revision at 18 years was 26% (95% confidence interval CI 24% to 28%). When comparing the outcome of the first revision by reason, prosthesis dislocation or instability had the highest rate of second revision compared with the other reasons for first revision. Dual-mobility prostheses had a lower rate of second revision for dislocation or instability than head sizes 32 mm or smaller and when compared to constrained prostheses after 3 months. There was no difference between dual-mobility prostheses and head sizes larger than 32 mm. There were no differences in the rate of second revision when first revisions for loosening, periprosthetic fracture, and osteolysis were compared. If cemented femoral fixation was performed at the time of the first revision, there was a higher cumulative percent second revision for loosening than cementless fixation from 6 months to 6 years, and after this time, there was no difference. The overall mortality after a first revision of primary conventional THA was 1% at 30 days, 2% at 90 days, 5% at 1 year, and 40% at 10 years. A first revision for periprosthetic fracture had the highest mortality at all timepoints compared with other reasons for the first revision.
Larger head sizes and dual-mobility cups may help reduce further revisions for dislocation, and the use of cementless stems for a first revision for loosening seems advantageous. Surgeons may counsel patients about the higher risk of death after first revision procedures, particularly if the first revision is performed for periprosthetic fracture.Level of Evidence Level III, therapeutic study.
Loss of glenoid fixation is a key factor affecting the survivorship of primary total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). It is not known whether the lower revision rates associated with crosslinked ...polyethylene (XLPE) compared with those of non-XLPE identified in hip and knee arthroplasty apply to shoulder arthroplasty.
We used data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) to compare the revision rates of primary stemmed anatomic TSA using XLPE to procedures using non-XLPE. In patients receiving a primary stemmed anatomic TSA for osteoarthritis, we asked: (1) Does the rate of revision or reason for revision vary between XLPE and non-XLPE all-polyethylene glenoid components? (2) Is there any difference in the revision rate when XLPE is compared with non-XLPE across varying head sizes? (3) Is there any difference in survival among prosthesis combinations with all-polyethylene glenoid components when they are used with XLPE compared with non-XLPE?
Data were extracted from the AOANJRR from April 16, 2004, to December 31, 2020. The AOANJRR collects data on more than 97% of joint replacements performed in Australia. The study population included all primary, stemmed, anatomic TSA procedures performed for osteoarthritis using all-polyethylene glenoid components. Procedures were grouped into XLPE and non-XLPE bearing surfaces for comparison. Of the 10,102 primary stemmed anatomic TSAs in the analysis, 39% (3942 of 10,102) used XLPE and 61% (6160 of 10,102) used non-XLPE. There were no differences in age, gender, or follow-up between groups. Revision rates were determined using Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship to describe the time to the first revision, with censoring at the time of death or closure of the database at the time of analysis. Revision was defined as removal, replacement, or addition of any component of a joint replacement. The unadjusted cumulative percent revision after the primary arthroplasty (with 95% confidence intervals CIs) was calculated and compared using Cox proportional hazard models adjusted for age, gender, fixation, and surgeon volume. Further analyses were performed stratifying according to humeral head size, and a prosthesis-specific analysis adjusted for age and gender was also performed. This analysis was restricted to prosthesis combinations that were used at least 150 times, accounted for at least four revisions, had XLPE and non-XLPE options available, and had a minimum of 3 years of follow-up.
Non - XLPE had a higher risk of revision than XLPE after 1.5 years (HR 2.3 95% CI 1.6 to 3.1; p < 0.001). The cumulative percent revision at 12 years was 5% (95% CI 4% to 6%) for XLPE and 9% (95% CI 8% to 10%) for non-XLPE. There was no difference in the rate of revision for head sizes smaller than 44 mm. Non-XLPE had a higher rate of revision than XLPE for head sizes 44 to 50 mm after 2 years (HR 2.3 95% CI 1.5 to 3.6; p < 0.001) and for heads larger than 50 mm for the entire period (HR 2.2 95% CI 1.4 to 3.6; p < 0.001). Two prosthesis combinations fulfilled the inclusion criteria for the prosthesis-specific analysis. One had a higher risk of revision when used with non-XLPE compared with XLPE after 1.5 years (HR 3.7 95% CI 2.2 to 6.3; p < 0.001). For the second prosthesis combination, no difference was found in the rate of revision between the two groups.
These AOANJRR data demonstrate that noncrosslinked, all-polyethylene glenoid components have a higher revision rate compared with crosslinked, all-polyethylene glenoid components when used in stemmed anatomic TSA for osteoarthritis. As polyethylene type is likely an important determinant of revision risk, crosslinked polyethylene should be used when available, particularly for head sizes larger than 44 mm. Further studies will need to be undertaken after larger numbers of shoulder arthroplasties have been performed to determine whether this reduction in revision risk associated with XLPE bears true for all TSA designs.
Level III, therapeutic study.
TKA generally has excellent long-term survivorship. When a new knee system supersedes a previous model, increased survivorship, improved functional performance, or both may be expected, because key ...areas of design modification are often targeted to address wear, stability, and the patellofemoral articulation. However, not all design changes are beneficial, and to our knowledge, knee arthroplasty has not been systematically evaluated in the context of design changes that occur during the development of new knee arthroplasty systems.
Using the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) we performed multiple old-to-new comparisons of frequently used contemporary knee implants to ask: (1) does overall prosthesis survivorship free from revision increase when a new knee prosthesis system is introduced to replace a prior prosthesis system? (2) Has survivorship free from revision improved for the revision indications of wear, instability, and patellofemoral articulation issues, where development efforts have been concentrated?
Data from the AOANJRR from September 1999 to December 2017 were used to compare the survivorship of prostheses free from revision at a maximum of 17 years in procedures where a new design model was introduced to replace a prior knee system from the same manufacturer. Only prosthesis systems used in a minimum of 2000 primary TKA procedures for osteoarthritis that had a minimum of 5 years of follow-up were included. Varus-valgus constrained and hinge TKA designs were excluded. Cruciate-retaining, posterior-stabilized, and medial pivot-design knees were considered separately. The new and old prosthesis systems were paired for analysis. Survivorship was calculated with Kaplan Meier estimates and comparisons were performed using the Cox proportional hazards method. Subanalyses according to the three main revision indications were performed, and where possible, analyses were performed based on polyethylene types (highly cross-linked polyethylene and ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene), combined and separated. Revision was defined as a reoperation of a previous knee arthroplasty in which one or more of the components was removed, replaced, or added. There were 323,955 TKA procedures and 11 new prosthesis system designs that were introduced to replace an earlier knee system from the same manufacturer. Of these prosthesis system pairs, six were cruciate-retaining prostheses, four were posterior-stabilized designs, and one was a medial pivot design.
Six of the 11 knee system pairs showed improved survivorship with the new design, three were no different, and in two, the newer prosthesis systems had a higher rate of revision than the old one did. When revision for wear was analyzed, five prosthesis systems showed improvement, five were no different, and one had a higher rate of revision than the previous system did. There was no improvement in the rate of revision for instability; seven new prosthesis systems showed no difference from the previous system and four new prosthesis systems had a higher rate of revision than the previous system did. A subanalysis of revision for patellofemoral complications showed improvement in two comparisons, no difference in six, and a higher revision rate in two; one could not be calculated because of an insufficient number of revisions for this reason.
It is difficult to predict whether a new system will demonstrate better survival than a previous one, and widespread uptake of a new design before a benefit is shown in robust clinical studies is unwise. Similarly, adoption of a new system for which there is no difference in survivorship from a previous model may be premature because a new device may have associated unknown and unintended consequences. Healthcare policy makers and therapeutic device regulators should similarly be guided by results and seek out peer-reviewed evidence before accepting change to established practice. Surgeons must be aware that implant changes may not translate into better survivorship and must seek compelling evidence of improvement in survival and/or function before changing systems.
Level III, therapeutic study.
Data assessing femoral stems may be influenced by grouping together matt and polished stems, despite their differing reported survivorship. The aim of this study is to assess the difference in ...revision rates between commonly used cemented and cementless stems when polished tapered stems are assessed independently of matt stems.
Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry data from 1999 to 2019 were used to assess difference in revision rates between the 5 most commonly implanted femoral cemented and cementless stems for osteoarthritis. Cemented matt femoral stems, stems using line-to-line cementing techniques and procedures using non-cross-linked polyethylene, large head (>32 mm) metal-on-metal bearing surfaces or exchangeable necks were excluded. Cumulative percent revision was used to help compare survivorship between stems.
There were 201,889 total hip replacements meeting the inclusion criteria, of which 50.0% were cemented and 50.0% cementless. Cemented stems had a lower rate of revision at all time points compared to cementless stems. This was most significant during the first 2 weeks (hazard ratio 0.48, 95% confidence interval 0.40-0.58, P < .001) compared to 2 weeks postoperatively and onwards (hazard ratio 0.85, 95% confidence interval 0.81-0.90, P < .001). A subanalysis of head size, bearing type, and surgeon volume further supported the use of a cemented stem.
Commonly used cemented polished tapered stems have a lower revision rate when compared to commonly used cementless prostheses, and are recommended in all age groups for both low-volume and high-volume surgeons especially when head size 32 mm or smaller is used.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UILJ, UL, UM, UPUK, ZAGLJ, ZRSKP
PDF
