Hip resurfacing arthroplasty: short-term survivorship of 4,401 hips from the Finnish Arthroplasty Register

Background and purpose

Population-based registry data from the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA) and from the National Joint Register of England and Wales have revealed that the outcome after hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) is inferior to that of conventional total hip arthroplasty (THA). We analyzed the short-term survival of 4,401 HRAs in the Finnish Arthroplasty Register.

Methods

We compared the revision risk of the 4,401 HRAs from the Register to that of 48,409 THAs performed during the same time period. The median follow-up time was 3.5 (0–9) years for HRAs and 3.9 (0–9) years for THAs.

Results

There was no statistically significant difference in revision risk between HRAs and THAs (RR = 0.93, 95% CI: 0.78–1.10). Female patients had about double the revision risk of male patients (RR = 2.0, CI: 1.4–2.7). Hospitals that had performed 100 or more HRA procedures had a lower revision risk than those with less than 100 HRAs (RR = 0.6, CI: 0.4–0.9). Articular Surface Replacement (ASR, DePuy) had inferior outcome with higher revision risk than the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing implant (BHR, Smith & Nephew), the reference implant (RR = 1.8, CI: 1.2–2.7).

Interpretation

We found that HRA had comparable short-term survivorship to THA at a nationwide level. Implant design had an influence on revision rates. ASR had higher revision risk. Low hospital procedure volume worsened the outcome of HRA. Female patients had twice the revision risk of male patients.Good short-term results of using modern hip resurfacing devices have been reported from pioneering centers (Amstutz et al. 2004, Daniel et al. 2004). Recently, these results have been confirmed by independent studies (Hing et al. 2007a, Heilpern et al. 2008, Steffen et al. 2008, Khan et al. 2009). However, there have been a variety of early complications of HRA, such as femoral neck fracture, aseptic loosening of the femoral component, and metallosis of the hip joint with soft-tissue necrosis (Shimmin et al. 2005, Keegan et al. 2007, Grammatopolous et al. 2009, Ollivere et al. 2009). Registry data have revealed that the early revision rate of HRA is higher than that of THA (Australian Orthopaedic Association, Johanson et al. 2010). Furthermore, conventional stems can nowadays be used with a large metal-on-metal (MoM) articulation similar to that in HRA. We examined the early outcome of HRA and compared it to that of THA using data in the Finnish Arthroplasty Register.     

Poor 10-year survivorship of hip resurfacing arthroplasty

Background and purpose — In a previous registry report, short-term implant survival of hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) in Finland was found to be comparable to that of total hip arthroplasty (THA). Since then, it has become evident that adverse reactions to metal debris (ARMDs) may also be associated with HRA, not only with large-diameter head metal-on-metal THA. The aim of the study was to assess medium- to long-term survivorship of HRA based on the Finnish Arthroplasty Register (FAR).

Patients and methods — 5,068 HRAs performed during the period 2001–2013 in Finland were included. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to calculate survival probabilities and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Cox multiple regression, with adjustment for age, sex, diagnosis, femoral head size, and hospital volume was used to analyze implant survival of HRA devices with revision for any reason as endpoint. The reference group consisted of 6,485 uncemented Vision/Bimetric and ABG II THAs performed in Finland over the same time period.

Results — The 8-year survival, with any revision as an endpoint, was 93% (CI: 92–94) for Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR), 86% (CI: 78–94) for Corin, 91% (CI: 89–94) for ReCap, 92% (CI: 89–96) for Durom, and was 72% (CI: 69–76) for the Articular Surface Replacement (ASR). The 10-year survival, with any revision as an endpoint, for reference THAs was 92% (CI: 91–92) and for all HRAs it was 86% (CI: 84–87%). Female HRA patients had about twice the revision risk of male patients. ASR had an inferior outcome: the revision risk was 4-fold higher than for BHR, the reference implant.

Interpretation — The 10-year implant survival of HRAs is 86% in Finland. According to new recommendations from NICE (The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence), an HRA/THA should have a revision rate of 5% or less at 10 years. None of the HRAs studied achieved this goal.     

Implant survival of the most common cemented total hip devices from the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association database

Background and purpose — According to previous Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA) data, the 10-year implant survival of cemented total hip arthroplasties (THAs) is 94% in patients aged 65–74 and 96% in patients aged 75 or more. Here we report a brand-level comparison of cemented THA based on the NARA database, which has not been done previously.

Patients and methods — We determined the rate of implant survival of the 9 most common cemented THAs in the NARA database. We used Kaplan-Meier analysis with 95% CI to study implant survival at 10 and 15 years, and Cox multiple regression to assess survival and hazard ratios (HRs), with revision for any reason as endpoint and with adjustment for age, sex, diagnosis, and femoral head material.

Results — Spectron EF THA (89.9% (CI: 89.3–90.5)) and Elite THA (89.8% (CI: 89.0–90.6)) had the lowest 10-year survivorship. Lubinus (95.7% survival, CI: 95.5–95.9), MS 30 (96.6%, CI: 95.8–97.4), and C-stem THA (95.8%, CI: 94.8–96.8) had a 10-year survivorship of at least 95%. Lubinus (revision risk (RR)?=?0.77, CI: 0.73–0.81), Müller (RR =0.83, CI: 0.70–0.99), MS-30 (RR =0.73, CI: 0.63–0.86), C-stem (RR =0.70, CI: 0.55–0.90), and Exeter Duration THA (RR =0.84, CI: 0.77–0.90) had a lower risk of revision than Charnley THA, the reference implant.

Interpretation — The Spectron EF THA and the Elite THA had a lower implant survival than the Charnley, Exeter, and Lubinus THAs. Implant survival of the Müller, MS 30, CPT, and C-stem THAs was above the acceptable limit for 10-year survival.     

Comparison of the risk of revision in cementless total hip arthroplasty with ceramic-on-ceramic and metal-on-polyethylene bearings

Background and purpose — Ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC) bearings were introduced in total hip arthroplasty (THA) to reduce problems related to polyethylene wear. We compared the 9-year revision risk for cementless CoC THA and for cementless metal-on-polyethylene (MoP) THA.

Patients and methods — In this prospective, population-based study from the Danish Hip Arthroplasty Registry, we identified all the primary cementless THAs that had been performed from 2002 through 2009 (n = 25,656). Of these, 1,773 THAs with CoC bearings and 9,323 THAs with MoP bearings were included in the study. To estimate the relative risk (RR) of revision, we used regression with the pseudo-value approach and treated death as a competing risk.

Results — 444 revisions were identified: 4.0% for CoC THA (71 of 1,773) and 4.0% for MoP THA (373 of 9,323). No statistically significant difference in the risk of revision for any reason was found for CoC and MoP bearings after 9 years of follow-up (adjusted RR = 1.3, 95% CI: 0.72–2.4). Revision rates due to component failure were 0.5% (n = 8) for CoC bearings and 0.1% (n = 6) for MoP bearings (p < 0.001). 6 patients with CoC bearings (0.34%) underwent revision due to ceramic fracture.

Interpretation — When compared to the “standard” MoP bearings, CoC THA had a 33% higher (though not statistically significantly higher) risk of revision for any reason at 9 years.     

Total hip arthroplasty for rheumatoid arthritis in younger patients: 2,557 replacements in the Finnish Arthroplasty Register followed for 0–24 years

Background?The results of total hip arthroplasty (THA) in young patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have been reported in only a few studies. On a nationwide level, the outcome of THA in these patients is unknown. We evaluated the population-based survival of THA in patients under 55 years of age with RA and factors affecting the survival.

Patients?Between 1980 and 2003, 2,557 primary THAs performed for RA in patients less than 55 years of age were reported to the Finnish Arthroplasty Register.

Results?Proximally circumferentially porous-coated uncemented stems had a 15-year survival rate of 89% (95% CI 83–94) with aseptic loosening as endpoint. The risk of stem revision due to aseptic loosening was higher with cemented stems than with proximally porouscoated uncemented stems implanted during the same period (RR 2.4; p < 0.001). In contrast, Cox regression analysis showed that the risk of cup revision was significantly higher for all uncemented cup concepts than for all-polyethylene cemented cups with any cup revision as endpoint. There were no significant differences in survival between the THR concepts.

Interpretations?Uncemented proximally circumferentially porous-coated stems and cemented all-poly-ethylene cups are currently the implants of choice for young patients with RA.     

Increased risk of revision in patients with non-traumatic femoral head necrosis

Background and purpose Previous studies of patients who have undergone total hip arthroplasty (THA) due to femoral head necrosis (FHN) have shown an increased risk of revision compared to cases with primary osteoarthritis (POA), but recent studies have suggested that this procedure is not associated with poor outcome. We compared the risk of revision after operation with THA due to FHN or POA in

the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA) database including Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden.

Patients and methods 427,806 THAs performed between 1995 and 2011 were included. The relative risk of revision for any reason, for aseptic loosening, dislocation, deep infection, and periprosthetic fracture was studied before and after adjustment for covariates using Cox regression models.

Results 416,217 hips with POA (mean age 69 (SD 10), 59% females) and 11,589 with FHN (mean age 65 (SD 16), 58% females) were registered. The mean follow-up was 6.3 (SD 4.3) years. After 2 years of observation, 1.7% in the POA group and 3.0% in the FHN group had been revised. The corresponding proportions after 16 years of observation were 4.2% and 6.1%, respectively. The 16-year survival in the 2 groups was 86% (95% CI: 86–86) and 77% (CI: 74–80). After adjusting for covariates, the relative risk (RR) of revision for any reason was higher in patients with FHN for both periods studied (up to 2 years: RR = 1.44, 95% CI: 1.34–1.54; p < 0.001; and 2–16 years: RR = 1.25, 1.14–1.38; p < 0.001).

Interpretation Patients with FHN had an overall increased risk of revision. This increased risk persisted over the entire period of observation and covered more or less all of the 4 most common reasons for revision.     

Inferior outcome after hip resurfacing arthroplasty than after conventional arthroplasty. Evidence from the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA) database, 1995 to 2007

Background and purpose

The reported outcomes of hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) vary. The frequency of this procedure in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden is low. We therefore determined the outcome of HRA in the NARA database, which is common to all 3 countries, and compared it to the outcome of conventional total hip arthroplasty (THA).

Methods

The risk of non-septic revision within 2 years was analyzed in 1,638 HRAs and compared to that for 172,554 conventional total hip arthroplasties (THAs), using Cox regression models. We calculated relative risk (RR) of revision and 95% confidence interval.

Results

HRA had an almost 3-fold increased revision risk compared to THA (RR = 2.7, 95% CI: 1.9–3.7). The difference was even greater when HRA was compared to the THA subgroup of cemented THAs (RR = 3.8, CI: 2.7–5.3). For men below 50 years of age, this difference was less pronounced (HRA vs. THA: RR = 1.9, CI: 1.0–3.9; HRA vs. cemented THA: RR = 2.4, CI: 1.1–5.3), but it was even more pronounced in women of the same age group (HRA vs. THA: RR = 4.7, CI: 2.6–8.5; HRA vs. cemented THA: RR = 7.4, CI: 3.7–15). Within the HRA group, risk of non-septic revision was reduced in hospitals performing ≥ 70 HRAs annually (RR = 0.3, CI: 0.1–0.7) and with use of Birmingham hip resurfacing (BHR) rather than the other designs as a group (RR = 0.3, CI: 0.1–0.7). Risk of early revision was also reduced in males (RR = 0.5, CI: 0.2–0.9). The femoral head diameter alone had no statistically significant influence on the early revision rate, but it eliminated the significance of male sex in a combined analysis.

Interpretation

In general, our results do not support continued use of hip resurfacing arthroplasty. Men had a lower early revision rate, which was still higher than observed for all-cemented hips. Further follow-up is necessary to determine whether HRA might be useful as an alternative in males.The development of contemporary metal-on-metal (MOM) bearings has stimulated renewed interest in hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) of the hip. These devices are available in different designs, most of which are hybrid concepts with cemented femoral and uncemented acetabular components. The proposed advantages of HRA compared to conventional total hip arthroplasty (THA) include improved range of motion and hip function, bone preservation, lower dislocation rates, and easier and safer revision procedures in case of failure (Shimmin et al. 2008). Because of the low wear characteristics observed in the laboratory and in clinical situations, the MOM bearing is thought to be especially suitable for patients with a long life expectancy (McMinn and Daniel 2006).Early reports from specialized centers have shown high survival rates: 97.8–99.8% after 3–5 years (Daniel et al. 2004, Treacy et al. 2005, Hing et al. 2007). Other authors have reported inferior results (Kim et al. 2008, Stulberg et al. 2008). Narrowing of patient selection criteria and refinement of surgical technique have improved the results in some case series (Mont et al. 2007, Amstutz et al. 2007). Several studies have shown that HRA is associated with a long learning curve. Early failures or inadequate implant positioning occurred at the beginning of the learner''s case series, which tended to decrease thereafter (Marker et al. 2007, Witjes et al. 2009, Nunley et al. 2010). Early failures are most commonly caused by femoral neck fracture and aseptic loosening of the femoral component. Thus, there are several indications that the outcome of HRA is influenced by patient selection, surgical technique, and experience in using this type of implant.Short- and medium-term results of HRA have previously been reported from national joint replacement registries. There has been a rapid increase in the use of HRA, with varying percentages of HRA relative to the total volume of THAs reported by different registries (Kärrholm et al. 2008, CJRR 2008-2009, AOANJRR 2008). Reports of inferior results, except in younger males with primary osteoarthritis, are most probably responsible for the recent tendency of decreasing use of HRA—especially in females (AOANJRR 2008). Further reports of comparatively rare but serious complications (Pandit et al. 2008, Hart et al. 2009, Ollivere et al. 2009) have probably also contributed to this tendency. Poor results after revision of failed HRA, equal to those obtained after revision of THA (AOANJRR 2008), may also have contributed to more restricted use.We analyzed the early outcome concerning aseptic revisions within 2 years of HRA and compared it to that of THA in the common database of the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (Havelin et al. 2009). We also evaluated the extent to which outcome was influenced by implant design, number of procedures per hospital, and femoral head size.     

Total hip replacement after femoral neck fractures in elderly patients : Results of 8,577 fractures reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register

Background?A total hip arthroplasty (THA) is often used as treatment for failed osteosynthesis of femoral neck fractures and is now also used for acute femoral neck fractures. To investigate the results of THA after femoral neck fractures, we used data from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register (NAR).

Patients and methods?The results of primary total hip replacements in patients with acute femoral neck fractures (n = 487) and sequelae after femoral neck fractures (n = 8,090) were compared to those of total hip replacements in patients with osteoarthrosis (OA) (n = 55,109). The hips were followed for 0–18 years. The Cox multiple regression model was used to construct adjusted survival curves and to adjust for differences in sex, age, and type of cement among the diagnostic groups. Separate analyses were done on the subgroups of patients who were operated with Charnley prostheses.

Results?The survival rate of the implants after 5 years was 95% for the patients with acute fractures, 96% for the patients with sequelae after fracture, and 97% for the OA patients. With adjustment for age, sex, and type of cement, the patients with acute fractures had an increased risk of revision compared to the OA patients (RR 1.6, 95% CI: 1.0–2.6; p = 0.05) and the sequelae patients had an increased risk of revision (RR 1.3, 95% CI: 1.2–1.5; p < 0.001). Sequelae hips had higher risk of revision due to dislocation (RR 2.0, 95% CI: 1.6–2.4; p < 0.001) and periprosthetic fracture (RR 2.2, 95% CI: 1.5–3.3; p < 0.001), and lower risk of revision due to loosening of the acetabular component (RR 0.72, 95% CI; 0.57–0.93; p = 0.01) compared to the OA patients. The increased risk of revision was most apparent for the first 6 months after primary operation.

Interpretation?THA in fracture patients showed good results, but there was an increased risk of early dislocations and periprosthetic fractures compared to OA patients.     

Low revision rate after total hip arthroplasty in patients with pediatric hip diseases

Background The results of primary total hip arthroplasties (THAs) after pediatric hip diseases such as developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH), slipped capital femoral epiphysis (SCFE), or Perthes’ disease have been reported to be inferior to the results after primary osteoarthritis of the hip (OA).

Materials and methods We compared the survival of primary THAs performed during the period 1995–2009 due to previous DDH, SCFE, Perthes’ disease, or primary OA, using merged individual-based data from the Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish arthroplasty registers, called the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA). Cox multiple regression, with adjustment for age, sex, and type of fixation of the prosthesis was used to calculate the survival of the prostheses and the relative revision risks.

Results 370,630 primary THAs were reported to these national registers for 1995–2009. Of these, 14,403 THAs (3.9%) were operated due to pediatric hip diseases (3.1% for Denmark, 8.8% for Norway, and 1.9% for Sweden) and 288,435 THAs (77.8%) were operated due to OA. Unadjusted 10-year Kaplan-Meier survival of THAs after pediatric hip diseases (94.7% survival) was inferior to that after OA (96.6% survival). Consequently, an increased risk of revision for hips with a previous pediatric hip disease was seen (risk ratio (RR) 1.4, 95% CI: 1.3–1.5). However, after adjustment for differences in sex and age of the patients, and in fixation of the prostheses, no difference in survival was found (93.6% after pediatric hip diseases and 93.8% after OA) (RR 1.0, CI: 1.0–1.1). Nevertheless, during the first 6 postoperative months more revisions were reported for THAs secondary to pediatric hip diseases (RR 1.2, CI: 1.0–1.5), mainly due to there being more revisions for dislocations (RR 1.8, CI: 1.4–2.3). Comparison between the different diagnosis groups showed that the overall risk of revision after DDH was higher than after OA (RR 1.1, CI: 1.0–1.2), whereas the combined group Perthes’ disease/SCFE did not have a significantly different risk of revision to that of OA (RR 0.9, CI: 0.7–1.0), but had a lower risk than after DDH (RR 0.8, CI: 0.7–1.0).

Interpretation After adjustment for differences in age, sex, and type of fixation of the prosthesis, no difference in risk of revision was found for primary THAs performed due to pediatric hip diseases and those performed due to primary OA.     

The type of surgical approach influences the risk of revision in total hip arthroplasty

Background and purpose The most common surgical approaches in total hip arthroplasty in Sweden are the posterior and the anterolateral transgluteal approach. Currently, however, there is insufficient evidence to prefer one over the other regarding risk of subsequent surgery.

Patients and methods We searched the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register between the years 1992 and 2009 to compare the posterior and anterolateral transgluteal approach regarding risk of revision in the 3 most common all-cemented hip prosthesis designs in Sweden. 90,662 total hip replacements met the inclusion criteria. We used Cox regression analysis for estimation of prosthesis survival and relative risk of revision due to dislocation, infection, or aseptic loosening.

Results Our results show that for the Lubinus SPII prosthesis and the Spectron EF Primary prosthesis, the anterolateral transgluteal approach gave an increased risk of revision due to aseptic loosening (relative risk (RR) = 1.3, 95% CI: 1.0–1.6 and RR = 1.6, CI: 1.0–2.5) but a reduced risk of revision due to dislocation (RR = 0.7, CI: 0.5–0.8 and RR = 0.3, CI: 0.1–0.4). For the Exeter Polished prosthesis, the surgical approach did not affect the outcome for dislocation or aseptic loosening. The surgical approach had no influence on the risk of revision due to infection in any of these designs.

Interpretation This observational study shows that the surgical approach affected the risk of revision due to aseptic loosening and dislocation for 2 of the most commonly used cemented implants in Sweden. Further studies are needed to determine whether these results are generalizable to other implants and to uncemented fixation.     

Dual-mobility cups for revision due to instability are associated with a low rate of re-revisions due to dislocation

Background and purpose Revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) due to recurrent dislocations is associated with a high risk of persistent instability. We hypothesized that the use of dual-mobility cups would reduce the risk of re-revision due to dislocation after revision THA.

Patients and methods 228 THA cup revisions (in 228 patients) performed due to recurrent dislocations and employing a specific dual-mobility cup (Avantage) were identified in the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed with re-revision due to dislocation as the primary endpoint and re-revision for any reason as the secondary endpoint. Cox regression models were fitted in order to calculate the influence of various covariates on the risk of re-revision.

Results 58 patients (25%) had been revised at least once prior to the index cup revision. The surgical approach at the index cup revision was lateral in 99 cases (44%) and posterior in 124 cases (56%). Median follow-up was 2 (0–6) years after the index cup revision, and by then 18 patients (8%) had been re-revised for any reason. Of these, 4 patients (2%) had been re-revised due to dislocation. Survival after 2 years with the endpoint revision of any component due to dislocation was 99% (95% CI: 97–100), and it was 93% (CI: 90–97) with the endpoint revision of any component for any reason. Risk factors for subsequent re-revision for any reason were age between 50–59 years at the time of the index cup revision (risk ratio (RR) = 5 when compared with age > 75, CI: 1–23) and previous revision surgery to the relevant joint (RR = 1.7 per previous revision, CI: 1–3).

Interpretation The risk of re-revision due to dislocation after insertion of dual-mobility cups during revision THA performed for recurrent dislocations appears to be low in the short term. Since most dislocations occur early after revision THA, we believe that this device adequately addresses the problem of recurrent instability. Younger age and prior hip revision surgery are risk factors for further revision surgery. However, problems such as potentially increased liner wear and subsequent aseptic loosening may be associated with the use of such devices in the long term.     

Conversion from failed hemiarthroplasty to total hip arthroplasty: A Norwegian Arthroplasty Register analysis of 595 hips with previous femoral neck fractures

Background and purpose?Conversion total hip replacement (THR) is a common procedure after failed hemiarthroplasty, but there have been few reports describing the long-term outcome of this procedure.

Patients and methods?Between 1987 and 2004, 595 THRs were reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register as conversion THR for failed hemiarthroplasty after a femoral neck fracture in patients aged 60 years and older. 122 operations left the femoral stem intact, whereas 473 were converted with exchange of the femoral stem.

Results?We found a lower risk of failure (revision surgery for any reason) for the conversion procedures with stem exchange (RR = 0.4; 95% CI: 0.25–0.81) than for the conversion procedures that retained the femoral stem. For the 473 conversion arthroplasties with exchange of the stem, we found no difference in risk of failure compared to all revision stems in the register, either for the complete prosthesis (RR = 0.8; CI: 0.50– 1.20) or for the stem (RR = 0.9; CI: 0.53–1.59). However, for the 122 conversion procedures in which the femoral stem was retained, we found a significantly increased risk of failure for both the complete prosthesis (RR = 4.6; CI: 2.8–7.6) and for the acetabular cup (RR = 4.8; CI: 2.3–10) compared to primary hip arthroplasties.

Interpretation?Our findings indicate that the seemingly easy operation of implanting an acetabular cup to convert a hemiarthroplasty to a total hip arthroplasty is an uncertain procedure and that the threshold for replacing the stem should be low.     

Revision Risk of Total Hip Arthroplasty With Vitamin E Doped Liners: Results From the Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register

BackgroundVitamin E-doped cross-linked polyethylene (VEPE) liners were introduced in total hip arthroplasty (THA) to reduce wear and risk of aseptic loosening and liner fracture. We report this nationwide population-based study to investigate the safety of VEPE liners for THA compared to cross-linked annealed or remelted polyethylene (XLPE).MethodsWe included THAs from The Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register from January 1, 2008 to June 30, 2019, with uncemented cup, VEPE or XLPE liner, and metal or ceramic head. The outcome was revision due to (1) polyethylene-related endpoints (aseptic loosening, granuloma, osteolysis, or liner fractures) and (2) other endpoints.ResultsA total of 110,803 THAs were assessed for eligibility and 53,842 THAs (46,645 patients) were included in the study: 5069 (9.4%) THAs with a VEPE liner and 48,773 (91.6%) with a XLPE liner. Median observation time was 5.48 (interquartile range 3.80-7.15) years for VEPE and 4.85 (interquartile range 2.68-7.76) for XLPE. VEPE had a lower risk of revision for polyethylene-related endpoints compared to XLPE (hazard ratio [HR] 0.60, 95% confidence interval 0.36-0.98) during complete follow-up. THAs with VEPE liners were associated with increased risk of any revision within the first 3 months (HR 1.62, 1.36-1.94), revision recorded as aseptic loosening within 3 months (HR 4.46, 2.26-8.80), and periprosthetic fracture within 3 months (HR 2.57, 1.98, 3.33).ConclusionVEPE liners had a lower risk of revision due to polyethylene-related endpoints, but a higher risk of all-cause revision within 3 months.     

High tibial osteotomy in Sweden, 1998–2007

Background and purpose Most studies on high tibial osteotomies (HTOs) have been hospital-based and have included a limited number of patients. We evaluated the use and outcome—expressed as rate of revision to knee arthroplasty—of HTO performed in Sweden with 9 million inhabitants, 1998–2007.

Patients and methods 3, 161 HTO procedures on patients 30 years or older (69% men) who were operated on for knee osteoarthritis in Sweden, 1998–2007, were identified through the inpatient and outpatient care registers of the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare. Pertinent data were verified through surgical records. Conversions of HTO to knee arthroplasty before 2010 were identified through the Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register (SKAR). The 10-year survival was determined using revision to an arthroplasty as the endpoint.

Results The number of HTOs decreased by one third between 1998 and 2007, from 388 operations a year to 257 a year. Most of the HTOs were performed with open wedge osteotomy using external fixation. The cumulative revision rate at 10 years was 30% (95% CI: 28–32). The risk of revision increased with increasing age and was higher in women than in men (RR = 1.3, CI: 1.1–1.5).

Interpretation If being without an artificial joint implant is considered to be beneficial, then HTO is an excellent alternative to knee arthroplasty in younger and/or physically active patients suffering from knee osteoarthritis.     

Reverse hybrid total hip arthroplasty

Background and purpose — The use of a cemented cup together with an uncemented stem in total hip arthroplasty (THA) has become popular in Norway and Sweden during the last decade. The results of this prosthetic concept, reverse hybrid THA, have been sparsely described. The Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA) has already published 2 papers describing results of reverse hybrid THAs in different age groups. Based on data collected over 2 additional years, we wanted to perform in depth analyses of not only the reverse hybrid concept but also of the different cup/stem combinations used.

Patients and methods — From the NARA, we extracted data on reverse hybrid THAs from January 1, 2000 until December 31, 2013. 38,415 such hips were studied and compared with cemented THAs. The Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression analyses were used to estimate the prosthesis survival and the relative risk of revision. The main endpoint was revision for any reason. We also performed specific analyses regarding the different reasons for revision and analyses regarding the cup/stem combinations used in more than 500 cases.

Results — We found a higher rate of revision for reverse hybrids than for cemented THAs, with an adjusted relative risk of revision (RR) of 1.4 (95% CI: 1.3–1.5). At 10 years, the survival rate was 94% (CI: 94–95) for cemented THAs and 92% (95% CI: 92–93) for reverse hybrids. The results for the reverse hybrid THAs were inferior to those for cemented THAs in patients aged 55 years or more (RR =1.1, CI: 1.0–1.3; p < 0.05). We found a higher rate of early revision due to periprosthetic femoral fracture for reverse hybrids than for cemented THAs in patients aged 55 years or more (RR =3.1, CI: 2.2–4.5; p < 0.001).

Interpretation — Reverse hybrid THAs had a slightly higher rate of revision than cemented THAs in patients aged 55 or more. The difference in survival was mainly caused by a higher incidence of early revision due to periprosthetic femoral fracture in the reversed hybrid THAs.     

Increased risk of intraoperative and early postoperative periprosthetic femoral fracture with uncemented stems

Background and purpose — The use of uncemented fixation in total hip arthroplasty (THA) is increasing. Registry studies have indicated an increased risk of revision of uncemented implants due to early periprosthetic femoral fracture. In this paper, we describe the incidence and predisposing factors for intraoperative and early postoperative (≤ 90 days) periprosthetic femoral fractures after cemented and uncemented THA.

Patients and methods — This was a prospective observational study in 8 Danish high-volume centers from February 2010 to November 2013. We used the 90-day follow-up from the Danish National Patient Registry and patient records. We obtained intraoperative information from the Danish Hip Arthroplasty Registry and from surgical notes.

Results — Of 7,169 primary consecutive THAs, 5,482 (77%) were performed using uncemented femoral components. The total incidence of periprosthetic femoral fractures ≤ 90 days postoperatively was 2.1% (n = 150). 70 fractures were detected intraoperatively (46 required osteosynthesis). 51 postoperatively detected fractures occurred without trauma (42 of which were reoperated) and 29 were postoperative fall-related fractures (27 of which were reoperated). 134 fractures (2.4%) were found in uncemented femoral components and 16 (0.9%) were found in cemented femoral components (p < 0.001). Uncemented femoral stem (relative risk (RR)?=?4.1, 95% CI: 2.3–7.2), medically treated osteoporosis (RR =2.8, CI: 1.6–4.8), female sex (RR =1.6, CI: 1.1–2.2), and age (RR =1.4 per 10 years, CI: 1.2–1.6) were associated with increased risk of periprosthetic femoral fracture when analyzed using multivariable regression analysis.

Interpretation — Uncemented femoral components were associated with an increased risk of early periprosthetic femoral fractures, especially in elderly, female, and osteoporotic patients.     

ASA class is associated with early revision and reoperation after total hip arthroplasty: an analysis of the Geneva and Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Registries

Background and purpose — Data from several joint replacement registries suggest that the rate of early revision surgery after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) is increasing. The ASA class, now widely recorded in arthroplasty registries, may predict early revision. We investigated the influence of ASA class on the risk of revision and other reoperation within 3 months and within 5 years of primary THA.

Patients and methods — We used data from the Geneva and Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Registries, on primary elective THAs performed in 1996–2016 and 2008–2016, respectively. 5,319 and 122,241 THAs were included, respectively. Outcomes were all-cause revision and other reoperations evaluated using Kaplan–Meier survival and Cox regression analyses.

Results — Within 3 months after surgery, higher ASA class was associated with greater risk of revision and other reoperation. 3-month cumulative incidences of revision by ASA class I, II, and III–IV respectively, were 0.6%, 0.7%, and 2.3% in Geneva and 0.5%, 0.8%, and 1.6% in Sweden. 3-month cumulative incidences of other reoperation were 0.4%, 0.7%, and 0.9% in Geneva and 0.2%, 0.4%, and 0.7% in Sweden. Adjusted hazard ratios (ASA III–IV vs. I) for revision within 3 months were 2.7 (95% CI 1.2–5.9) in Geneva and 3.3 (CI 2.6–4.0) in Sweden.

Interpretation — Assessment of ASA class of patients prior to THA will facilitate risk stratification. Targeted risk-reduction strategies may be appropriate during the very early postoperative period for patients identified as at higher risk. Systematically recording ASA class in arthroplasty registries will permit risk adjustment and facilitate comparison of revision rates internationally.     

Use of diuretics and risk of implant failure after primary total hip arthroplasty: A nationwide population-based study

IntroductionThiazid and loop diuretics have been associated with changes in bone mineral density and fracture risk. However, data on survival of prosthesis implants are lacking. We evaluated the association between diuretic use and the risk of revision after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA).Materials and methodsWe conducted a nationwide population-based case-control study using medical databases in Denmark. In the Danish Hip Arthroplasty Registry, we identified 2491 cases that were revised after primary THA in the period 1995–2005 and who could be matched on age, gender and year of primary operation with 4943 non-revised THA controls. By means of conditional logistic regression, we estimated the relative risk (RR) of revision due to all causes and due to specific causes according to postoperative use of thiazid and loop diuretic, respectively.ResultsThe 10-year cumulated implant revision rate in the underlying cohort of 57,575 THA procedures from the Danish Hip Arthroplasty Registry was 8.9% (95% CI: 8.4–9.4). Postoperative thiazid diuretic use was not associated with neither the overall risk of revision nor revision due to specific causes compared to non-use. Postoperative loop diuretic use was associated with an adjusted RR of revision of 1.14 (95% CI; 0.98–1.32) compared with non-use. The adjusted RR of revision due to deep infection and periprosthetic fracture in loop diuretic users was 1.71 (1.15–2.55) and 6.39 (1.84–22.21), respectively. Loop diuretic use was not associated with risk of revision due to aseptic loosening, dislocation or miscellaneous causes.DiscussionLoop diuretics but not thiazides may be associated with an increased risk of revision following primary THA. Further studies are warranted in order to confirm this finding and clarify the nature of the association.     

Survival of 11,390 Continuum cups in primary total hip arthroplasty based on data from the Finnish Arthroplasty Register

Background and purpose — The use of trabecular metal (TM) cups for primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) is increasing. Some recent data suggest that the use of TM in primary THA might be associated with an increased risk of revision. We compared implant survival of Continuum acetabular cups with other commonly used uncemented cups.

Patients and methods — Data on 11,390 primary THAs with the Continuum cup and 30,372 THAs with other uncemented cups (reference group) were collected from the Finnish Arthroplasty Register. Kaplan–Meier survival estimates were calculated; the endpoint was revision for any reason, for infection, or for dislocation. Revision risks were assessed with adjusted Cox multiple regression models. A subgroup analysis on the use of neutral or elevated liners in the Continuum group was made.

Results — The 7-year survivorship of the Continuum group was 94.6% (95% CI 94.0–95.2) versus 95.6% (CI 95.3–95.8) in the reference group for revision for any reason. The risk for revision was higher in the Continuum group than in the reference group both for revision for any reason (HR 1.3 [CI 1.2–1.5)]) and for revision for dislocation (HR 1.9 [CI 1.5–2.3]). There was no difference in the rates of revision because of infection (HR 0.99 [CI 0.78–1.3]). Use of a neutral liner increased the risk for revision due to dislocation in comparison with the use of an elevated rim liner in the Continuum group (HR 1.7 [CI 1.2–2.5]).

Interpretation — THA with Continuum cups is associated with an increased risk of revision compared with other uncemented cups, mainly due to revisions because of dislocation. Our results support the use of an elevated liner when Continuum cups are used for primary THA.     

Increased Mortality After Prosthetic Joint Infection in Primary THA

Background

Revision for prosthetic joint infection (PJI) has a major effect on patients’ health but it remains unclear if early PJI after primary THA is associated with a high mortality.

Questions/Purposes

(1) Do patients with a revision for PJI within 1 year of primary THA have increased mortality compared with patients who do not undergo revision for any reason within 1 year of primary THA? (2) Do patients who undergo a revision for PJI within 1 year of primary THA have an increased mortality risk compared with patients who undergo an aseptic revision? (3) Are there particular bacteria among patients with PJI that are associated with an increased risk of death?

Methods

This population-based cohort study was based on the longitudinally maintained Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register on primary THA performed in Denmark from 2005 to 2014. Data from the Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register were linked to microbiology databases, the National Register of Patients, and the Civil Registration System to obtain data on microbiology, comorbidity, and vital status on all patients. Because reporting to the register is compulsory for all public and private hospitals in Denmark, the completeness of registration is 98% for primary THA and 92% for revisions (2016 annual report). The mortality risk for the patients who underwent revision for PJI within 1 year from implantation of primary THA was compared with (1) the mortality risk for patients who did not undergo revision for any reason within 1 year of primary THA; and (2) the mortality risk for patients who underwent an aseptic revision. A total of 68,504 primary THAs in 59,954 patients were identified, of those 445 primary THAs underwent revision for PJI, 1350 primary THAs underwent revision for other causes and the remaining 66,709 primary THAs did not undergo revision. Patients were followed from implantation of primary THA until death or 1 year of followup, or, in case of a revision, 1 year from the date of revision.

Results

Within 1 year of primary THA, 8% (95% CI, 6%–11%) of patients who underwent revision for PJI died. The adjusted relative mortality risk for patients with revision for PJI was 2.18 (95% CI, 1.54–3.08) compared with the patients who did not undergo revision for any cause (p < 0.001). The adjusted relative mortality risk for patients with revisions for PJI compared with patients with aseptic revision was 1.87 (95% CI, 1.11–3.15; p = 0.019). Patients with enterococci-infected THA had a 3.10 (95% CI, 1.66–5.81) higher mortality risk than patients infected with other bacteria (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Revision for PJI within 1 year after primary THA induces an increased mortality risk during the first year after the revision surgery. This study should incentivize further studies on prevention of PJI and on risk to patients with the perspective to reduce mortality in patients who have had THA in general and for patients with PJI specifically.

Level of Evidence

Level III, therapeutic study.