Total hip arthroplasty for primary osteoarthrosis in younger patients in the Finnish arthroplasty register. 4,661 primary replacements followed for 0-22 years

BACKGROUND: Many studies have found a higher risk of revision after hip arthroplasty in younger patients. We evaluated the population-based survival of total hip arthroplasty (THA) in patients under 55 years of age and the factors affecting survival. METHODS: The Finnish Arthroplasty Register was established in 1980, and 74,492 primary THAs were entered into the register between 1980 and 2001. 4,661 of these were evaluated, all of which had been performed for primary osteoarthrosis on patients under 55 years of age. RESULTS: Proximally circumferentially porous-coated uncemented stems implanted between 1991 and 2001 had a 10-year survival rate of 99 (95% CI 98.5-99.6)% with aseptic loosening as endpoint. The risk of stem revision due to aseptic loosening was higher in cemented stems than in proximally porous-coated (RR 5.5, p < 0.001) or HA-coated (RR 6.6, p = 0.01) uncemented stems implanted during the same period. According to Cox regression analysis of cups implanted 1991-2001, the risk of revision for all-polyethylene cemented cups was 3.0 times as high as that for press-fit porous-coated uncemented cups with aseptic loosening as endpoint (p = 0.01). However, when the endpoint was defined as any revision (including exchange of liner), there was no longer any difference between these two concepts, the 10-year survival rates being 94 (92.1-95.5)% for press-fit porous-coated uncemented cups and 93 (88.5-97.6)% for all-polyethylene cemented cups (p = 0.9). INTERPRETATION: Modern uncemented stems seem to have better resistance to aseptic loosening than cemented stems in younger patients. Thus, for younger patients, uncemented proximally circumferentially porous- and HA-coated stems are the implants of choice. Press-fit porous- and HA-coated uncemented cups may have better endurance against aseptic loosening than cemented cups in younger patients. However, when all revisions (including exchange of liner) are taken into account, the survival of modern uncemented cups is no better than that of all-poly cemented cups.     

Ten-year survival of the MS-30 matt-surfaced cemented stem

The Morscher-Spotorno (MS-30) femoral stem is a stainless-steel, straight, three-dimensionally tapered, collarless implant for cemented fixation in total hip replacement.We report the results at ten years of a consecutive series of 124 total hip replacements in 121 patients with the matt-surfaced MS-30 stem and an alumina ceramic head of 28-mm diameter. All the stems were fixed with Palacos bone cement with gentamicin using a modern cementing technique. They were combined with an uncemented, press-fit cup. The mean period of observation was 10.2 years (8.3 to 12.1) and no patient was lost to follow-up. Twenty-seven patients (22%) died with the implant in situ. Nine could only be interviewed by telephone. We included 85 patients with 88 hips in the clinical and radiological follow-up examinations.None of the stems or cups had been revised. The Harris hip score was excellent or good in 97% (85 hips) and moderate in 3% (three hips). Radiologically, six hips (6.8%) had osteolysis adjacent to the stem, mostly in Gruen zone 7. Twenty (22.7%) showed one or more radiolucent lines. Twenty-two stems (25%) had subsided by 2 mm to 5 mm. In these cases two showed osteolysis (9.1%) with subsidence and four without (6.1%). Radiolucent lines were seen in seven with migration (31.8%) and in 13 without (19.7%). No infections and no acetabular osteolysis were observed.The clinical results were excellent with survivorship after ten years of 100% and only a slightly statistically non-significant higher rate of osteolysis and radiolucency in cases of subsidence.     

ICLH double-cup arthroplasty, 1980-1987

The results are presented of 92 double-cup arthroplasties modified in light of previously published experience. The review period lasted up to 7 years after operation. Eighty-six had a metal femoral component and six had a ceramic femoral component. Forty metal femoral cups were matched with a cemented acetabulum, while with 46 the acetabular implant was cementless. The overall revision rate for the metal femoral cups was 23.3%, and a further 31.8% demonstrated radiological signs suggestive of loosening. There was no difference between the cemented and uncemented cups in terms of revision rates or clinical results. The clinical results of those hips that have not yet loosened were excellent. A histological study showed that femoral lossening was associated with an erosive cellular response. Surface arthroplasty of the hip with current materials should be abandoned.     

The Norwegian Arthroplasty Register: 11 years and 73,000 arthroplasties

In 1985, the Norwegian Orthopaedic Association decided to establish a national hip register, and the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register was started in 1987. In January 1994, it was extended to include all artificial joints. The main purpose of the register is to detect inferior results of implants as early as possible. All hospitals participate, and the orthopedic surgeons are supposed to report all primary operations and all revisions. Using the patient's unique national social security number, the revision can be linked to the primary operation, and survival analyses of the implants are done. In general, the survival analyses are performed with the Kaplan-Meier method or using Cox multiple regression analysis with adjustment for possible confounding factors such as age, gender, and diagnosis. Survival probabilities can be calculated for each of the prosthetic components. The end-point in the analyses is revision surgery, and we can assess the rate of revision due to specific causes like aseptic loosening, infection, or dislocation. Not only survival, but also pain, function, and satisfaction have been registered for subgroups of patients. We receive reports about more than 95% of the prosthesis operations. The register has detected inferior implants 3 years after their introduction, and several uncemented prostheses were abandoned during the early 1990s due to our documentation of poor performance. Further, our results also contributed to withdrawal of the Boneloc cement. The register has published papers on economy, prophylactic use of antibiotics, patients' satisfaction and function, mortality, and results for different hospital categories. In the analyses presented here, we have compared the results of primary cemented and uncemented hip pros theses in patients less than 60 years of age, with 0-11 years' follow-up. The uncemented circumferentially porous- or hydroxyapatite (HA)-coated femoral stems had better survival rates than the cemented ones. In young patients, we found that cemented cups had better survival than uncemented porous-coated cups, mainly because of higher rates of revision from wear and osteolysis among the latter. The uncemented HA-coated cups with more than 6 years of follow-up had an increased revision rate, compared to cemented cups due to aseptic loosening as well as wear and osteolysis. We now present new findings about the six commonest cemented acetabular and femoral components. Generally, the results were good, with a prosthesis survival of 95% or better at 10 years, and the differences among the prosthesis brands were small. Since the practice of using undocumented implants has not changed, the register will continue to survey these implants. We plan to assess the mid- and long-term results of implants that have so far had good short-term results.     

The Norwegian Arthroplasty Register: 11 years and 73,000 arthroplasties

In 1985, the Norwegian Orthopaedic Association decided to establish a national hip register, and the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register was started in 1987. In January 1994, it was extended to include all artificial joints. The main purpose of the register is to detect inferior results of implants as early as possible. All hospitals participate, and the orthopedic surgeons are supposed to report all primary operations and all revisions. Using the patient's unique national social security number, the revision can be linked to the primary operation, and survival analyses of the implants are done. In general, the survival analyses are performed with the Kaplan-Meier method or using Cox multiple regression analysis with adjustment for possible confounding factors such as age, gender, and diagnosis. Survival probabilities can be calculated for each of the prosthetic components. The end-point in the analyses is revision surgery, and we can assess the rate of revision due to specific causes like aseptic loosening, infection, or dislocation. Not only survival, but also pain, function, and satisfaction have been registered for subgroups of patients. We receive reports about more than 95% of the prosthesis operations. The register has detected inferior implants 3 years after their introduction, and several uncemented prostheses were abandoned during the early 1990s due to our documentation of poor performance. Further, our results also contributed to withdrawal of the Boneloc cement. The register has published papers on economy, prophylactic use of antibiotics, patients' satisfaction and function, mortality, and results for different hospital categories. In the analyses presented here, we have compared the results of primary cemented and uncemented hip pros theses in patients less than 60 years of age, with 0-11 years' follow-up. The uncemented circumferentially porous- or hydroxyapatite (HA)-coated femoral stems had better survival rates than the cemented ones. In young patients, we found that cemented cups had better survival than uncemented porous-coated cups, mainly because of higher rates of revision from wear and osteolysis among the latter. The uncemented HA-coated cups with more than 6 years of follow-up had an increased revision rate, compared to cemented cups due to aseptic loosening as well as wear and osteolysis. We now present new findings about the six commonest cemented acetabular and femoral components. Generally, the results were good, with a prosthesis survival of 95% or better at 10 years, and the differences among the prosthesis brands were small. Since the practice of using undocumented implants has not changed, the register will continue to survey these implants. We plan to assess the mid- and long-term results of implants that have so far had good short-term results.     

The Norwegian Arthroplasty Register: 11 years and 73,000 arthroplasties

In 1985, the Norwegian Orthopaedic Association decided to establish a national hip register, and the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register was started in 1987. In January 1994, it was extended to include all artificial joints. The main purpose of the register is to detect inferior results of implants as early as possible. All hospitals participate, and the orthopedic surgeons are supposed to report all primary operations and all revisions. Using the patient's unique national social security number, the revision can be linked to the primary operation, and survival analyses of the implants are done. In general, the survival analyses are performed with the Kaplan-Meier method or using Cox multiple regression analysis with adjustment for possible confounding factors such as age, gender, and diagnosis. Survival probabilities can be calculated for each of the prosthetic components. The end-point in the analyses is revision surgery, and we can assess the rate of revision due to specific causes like aseptic loosening, infection, or dislocation. Not only survival, but also pain, function, and satisfaction have been registered for subgroups of patients. We receive reports about more than 95% of the prosthesis operations. The register has detected inferior implants 3 years after their introduction, and several uncemented prostheses were abandoned during the early 1990s due to our documentation of poor performance. Further, our results also contributed to withdrawal of the Boneloc cement. The register has published papers on economy, prophylactic use of antibiotics, patients' satisfaction and function, mortality, and results for different hospital categories. In the analyses presented here, we have compared the results of primary cemented and uncemented hip prostheses in patients less than 60 years of age, with 0-11 years' follow-up. The uncemented circumferentially porous- or hydroxyapatite (HA)-coated femoral stems had better survival rates than the cemented ones. In young patients, we found that cemented cups had better survival than uncemented porous-coated cups, mainly because of higher rates of revision from wear and osteolysis among the latter. The uncemented HA-coated cups with more than 6 years of follow-up had an increased revision rate, compared to cemented cups due to aseptic loosening as well as wear and osteolysis. We now present new findings about the six commonest cemented acetabular and femoral components. Generally, the results were good, with a prosthesis survival of 95% or better at 10 years, and the differences among the prosthesis brands were small. Since the practice of using undocumented implants has not changed, the register will continue to survey these implants. We plan to assess the mid- and long-term results of implants that have so far had good short-term results.     

The Effect of Electric Current on the Healing time of Crural Fractures

Background and purpose — Uncemented stems are increasingly used in revision hip arthroplasty, but only a few studies have analyzed the outcomes of uncemented and cemented revision stems in large cohorts of patients. We compared the results of uncemented and cemented revision stems.

Patients and methods — 1,668 uncemented and 1,328 cemented revision stems used in first-time revisions due to aseptic loosening between 1999 and 2016 were identified in the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. Kaplan–Meier analysis was used to investigate unadjusted implant survival with re-revision for any reason as the primary outcome. Hazard ratios (HR) for the risk of re-revision were calculated using a Cox regression model adjusted for sex, age, head size, concomitant cup revision, surgical approach at primary and at index revision surgery, and indication for primary total hip arthroplasty.

Results — Unadjusted 10-year survival was 85% (95% CI 83–87) for uncemented and 88% (CI 86–90) for cemented revision stems. The adjusted HR for re-revision of uncemented revision stems during the first year after surgery was 1.3 (CI 1.0–1.6), from the second year the HR was 1.1 (CI 0.8–1.4). Uncemented stems were most often re-revised early due to infection and dislocation, whereas cemented stems were mostly re-revised later due to aseptic loosening.

Interpretation — Both uncemented and cemented revision stems had satisfactory long-term survival but they differed in their modes of failure. Our conclusions are limited by the fact that femoral bone defect size could not be investigated within the setting of the current study.     

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.     

A Long-Term Survivorship Comparison Between Cemented and Uncemented Cups With Shelf Grafts in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty After Dysplasia

Long-term outcomes of cemented and uncemented cups were compared in patients with hip dysplasia who had undergone revision hip arthroplasty. Patients had uncontained superolateral acetabular defects reconstructed with a structural allograft. This retrospective study compared 18 cemented acetabular cups to 27 uncemented acetabular cups. Average follow-up was 216 months (range, 96-312). Nineteen acetabular cups (42%) failed due to loosening and were revised. The 10- and 20-year cup survival was 88% and 76% in the uncemented group and 67% and 36% in the cemented group. Log rank analysis showed this difference to be significant (P = .0077). Uncemented acetabular cups performed significantly better than cemented cups.     

Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: The Femoral Component

The initial results with cemented femoral revision stems were disappointing, with high early loosening rates. The application of second-generation cementing techniques improved results markedly, with loosening rates of 10% at 10 years in a number of series. Bone quality and patient age also appear to be important factors in predicting the success with a cemented revision stem. The use of a long stem is not necessary to obtain these improved results. On the basis of early reports, a recently described technique in which a revision stem is cemented into impacted cancellous allograft appears promising. Results with proximally coated uncemented revision stems have been variable, with failure rates of 4% to 10% reported at only 2 to 4 years. Initial stability must be obtained if proximal coating is to be utilized. Extensively coated revision stems provide initial stability through an interference fit between the porous coating and the diaphysis. With this technique, 10-year survival rates of 90% have been achieved, and the clinical results appear to be equivalent to those obtained with cemented revision stems and modern cementing techniques. Diaphyseal fixation has also been achieved without porous coating, either with modular revision stems or with long, textured titanium stems. Isolated early reports with such stems have been promising, but 10-year results are not yet available.     

Total hip arthroplasty in patients less than 40 years old with avascular necrosis of the femoral head. A 5 to 19-year follow-up study

We evaluated 34 total hip arthroplasties (THA) for avascular necrosis of the femoral head in 26 patients who were younger than 40 years at the time of the index operation. The average age at the time of THA was 283 (17-38) years. The mean follow-up was 10.9 (5-19) years. We used 6 cemented and 28 cementless acetabular components and a cemented polished tapered stem in all hips. The mean Charnley modified Merle d' Aubigné Postel score was 8.9 points preoperatively and 16.6 points at final follow-up. Two cemented metal-backed cups were revised because of aseptic loosening at 10 years, one cemented polyethylene cup failed at 12 years and 2 more all polyethylene cups had pending failure. The metal-backed cemented cups and the all polyethylene cups had a longer follow-up than the uncemented cups. Therefore and because of the proven unfavourable long-term outcome of the cemented metal-backed Exeter cup we are not able to draw any firm conclusions regarding the preferred choice between cemented and uncemented cups in this particular group of patients. On the femoral site none of the stems had to be revised. Our results show that a cemented polished tapered femoral component has an excellent survival in primary total hip replacement in young patients with avascular necrosis of the femoral head.     

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.     

Résultats de la série GECO

301 hip prostheses were implanted in patients under the age of 50 years. All patients were followed for a minimal period of 3 years or until revision. The young age is due to the etiologies: femoral head necrosis, congenital hip dislocation, post-traumatic arthrosis. The implanted prostheses were of different types: both components were usually cementless; most bearing surfaces were alumina-polyethylene, with a head diameter of 32 or 28 mm. Patients were followed for 3 to 18 years after implantation (mean: 7 years). At the last follow-up, 59 prostheses (20%) had been exchanged; 232 cases had a good functional result according to Merle d’Aubigné (77% of the whole series and 96% of the surviving prostheses). The non revised patients mostly had an excellent result with regard to pain, range of motion and gait, and 85% returned to work.The final X-ray examinations of surviving prostheses showed 22% acetabular and 25% femoral radiolucent lines without loosening, 7% severe acetabular polyethylene wear. 3% of acetabular and 9% of femoral prostheses had migrated, mostly during the first months after cementless implantation with subsequent stabilisation.Revisions were performed after 6 months to 16 years. Main reasons were primary instability of a cementless implant (14 cases), secondary instability of a cementless implant (18 cases) and loosening of a cemented implant (18 cases). The global survival rate is 67% after 10 years, and 47% after 14 years. The survival rate of cemented cups was higher than screwed uncemented cups after 12 years (73% vs 59% - p<0,05), and there was no difference with uncemented press-fit cups after 7 years (95% vs 90%). The survival rate of cemented cups was higher than uncoated uncemented cups after 13 years(67% vs 53% -p<0,05), and there was no difference with hydroxyapatite-coated uncemented cups after 5 years (97% vs 93%). There was no difference between survival rates of cemented or cementless femoral prosthesis after 12 years (63% vs 54%) with respect to the presence or absence of hydroxyapatite. There was no difference between the survival rates of all bearing surfaces after 5 and 11 years, but none of the zirconia-polyethylene bearings had been revised after 5 years. There was no difference between survival rates of 28 mm and 32 mm heads after 8 years (86% vs 78%).Cemented prostheses are clearly indicated for patients under 50. Screwed uncemented cups are no longer indicated. Uncemented prostheses showed no better survival than cemented ones. Zirconia-polyethylene bearings could lead to a better survival rate than alumina-polyethylene or steel-polyethylene bearings.     

Excellent Long-Term Survival Rate of Polished,Tapered, Cemented Stems in Patients Aged 35 Years or Younger With Avascular Necrosis or Inflammatory Arthritis of the Hip

BackgroundTotal hip arthroplasty (THA) for avascular necrosis (AVN) or inflammatory arthritis (IA) comes with a relatively high risk of aseptic stem loosening, especially in young patients. There are limited long-term data on the survivorship of polished, tapered, cemented stems in this population. We therefore performed a single-center retrospective study investigating the survival of this particular stem type in young patients with AVN or IA.MethodsAll patients aged ≤35 years who had received a THA for AVN or IA operated on by the senior author between 1990 and 2010 at the University Hospitals Leuven were identified. In total, 85 THAs in 62 patients were included. Primary endpoint was revision of the femoral component for aseptic loosening. Secondary endpoints were revision of the acetabular component for aseptic loosening, revision for other reasons, and the presence of radiolucencies around the components.ResultsThe mean follow-up for the entire cohort was 18.0 ± 5.3 years (range 8.0-28.9). Taking revision for aseptic loosening as endpoint, the survival of cemented stems was 100% after 15 years and 95.1% after 20 years. Survival of uncemented cups (91.3%) was significantly better than survival of cemented cups (50.3%) after 20 years of follow-up for aseptic loosening. Taking revision for any reason as endpoint, the survival of THAs with uncemented and cemented cups was 90% and 43.1% at 20 years respectively. Radiolucencies developed in the cement mantles around 11 of the 81 nonrevised stems, mainly in zones 1 and 7.ConclusionIn this cohort of young patients with high-risk profiles for aseptic stem loosening, polished, tapered, cemented stems showed excellent long-term survival rates and they therefore remain a viable alternative to uncemented stem designs.     

Long-term registration has improved the quality of hip replacement: a review of the Swedish THR Register comparing 160,000 cases

The Swedish Hip Register has defined the epidemiology of total hip replacement in Sweden. Most hip implants are fully cemented. Serious complications and rates of revision have declined significantly despite an increasing number of patients at risk. During the past 5 years, only 8-9% of hip replacements are revisions. Aseptic loosening with or without osteolysis is the major problem and constitutes 71% of the revisions, but the incidence had decreased three times during the past 15 years to less than 3% at 10 years. The effectiveness of the surgical technique is the most important factor for reducing the risk of revision because of aseptic loosening, but choice of implant is also important. In practice, total hip replacement in Sweden has improved, as judged by information from this Register about individualized patient risks, implant safety, and the greater efficacy of surgical and cementing techniques.     

Effects of material properties of femoral hip components on bone remodeling.

Bone loss around femoral hip stems is one of the problems threatening the long-term fixation of uncemented stems. Many believe that this phenomenon is caused by reduced stresses in the bone (stress shielding). In the present study the mechanical consequences of different femoral stem materials were investigated using adaptive bone remodeling theory in combination with the finite element method. Bone-remodeling in the femur around the implant and interface stresses between bone and implant were investigated for fully bonded femoral stems. Cemented stems (cobalt-chrome or titanium alloy) caused less bone resorption and lower interface stresses than uncemented stems made from the same materials. The range of the bone resorption predicted in the simulation models was from 23% in the proximal medial cortex surrounding the cemented titanium alloy stem to 76% in the proximal medial cortex around the uncemented cobalt-chrome stem. Very little bone resorption was predicted around a flexible, uncemented "iso-elastic" stem, but the proximal interface stresses increased drastically relative to the stiffer uncemented stems composed of cobalt-chrome or titanium alloy. However, the proximal interface stress peak was reduced and shifted during the adaptive remodeling process. The latter was found particularly in the stiffer uncemented cobalt-chrome-molybdenum implant and less for the flexible iso-elastic implant.     

Is reverse hybrid hip replacement the solution?: 3,963 primary hip replacements with cemented cup and uncemented stem,from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register

Background and purpose

Reverse hybrid hip replacement uses a cemented all-polyethylene cup and an uncemented stem. Despite increasing use of this method in Scandinavia, there has been very little documentation of results. We have therefore analyzed the results from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register (NAR), with up to 10 years of follow-up.

Patients and methods

The NAR has been collecting data on total hip replacement (THR) since 1987. Reverse hybrid hip replacements were used mainly from 2000. We extracted data on reverse hybrid THR from this year onward until December 31, 2009, and compared the results with those from cemented implants over the same period. Specific cup/stem combinations involving 100 cases or more were selected. In addition, only combinations that were taken into use in 2005 or earlier were included. 3,963 operations in 3,630 patients were included. We used the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression analysis for estimation of prosthesis survival and relative risk of revision. The main endpoint was revision for any cause, but we also performed specific analyses on different reasons for revision.

Results

We found equal survival to that from cemented THR at 5 years (cemented: 97.0% (95% CI: 96.8–97.2); reverse hybrid: 96.7% (96.0–97.4)) and at 7 years (cemented: 96.0% (95.7–96.2); reverse hybrid: 95.6% (94.4–96.7)). Adjusted relative risk of revision of the reverse hybrids was 1.1 (0.9–1.4). In patients under 60 years of age, we found similar survival of the 2 groups at 5 and 7 years, with an adjusted relative risk of revision of reverse hybrids of 0.9 (0.6–1.3) compared to cemented implants.

Interpretation

With a follow-up of up to 10 years, reverse hybrid THRs performed well, and similarly to all-cemented THRs from the same time period. The reverse hybrid method might therefore be an alternative to all-cemented THR. Longer follow-up time is needed to evaluate whether reverse hybrid hip replacement has any advantages over all-cemented THR.The reverse hybrid method (also known as “inverse hybrid”) uses a cemented all-polyethylene cup in combination with an uncemented stem. This method is partly based on good clinical results of cemented cups and of some uncemented stems in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register (NAR) (Havelin et al. 2000a,b, Hallan et al. 2007). The register has also shown that some uncemented femoral stems may have better long–term results (> 10 years) than cemented stems in patients 60 years of age or younger. Based on these findings, the NAR suggested 10 years ago that the use of cemented cups in combination with uncemented stems might be justified in young patients (Havelin et al. 2000a). In the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register, the performance of uncemented THR was found to be inferior to that of cemented THR (Hailer et al. 2010). The authors of that study found that cemented cups performed better than uncemented cups and that uncemented femoral stems had better survival than cemented stems, with aseptic loosening as endpoint. In the Finnish Arthroplasty Registry, Mäkelä et al. (2010) found better long-term survival regarding aseptic loosening for the best performing types of cementless stems compared to the cemented reference group, in the age group 55–74 years.McNally et al. (2000) studied survival of the Furlong HA coated femoral stem in combination with a cemented ultra-high-density polyethylene cup at 10–11 years, and found values of 99% for the stem and 95% for the cup. Alho et al. (2000) reported results with cemented Lubinus cups and uncemented Furlong stems, and they also pointed out the possibility of using the principle of reverse hybrid arthroplasty. We are not aware of any other reports on the reverse hybrid method.In a reverse hybrid THR, an uncemented stem and a modular head are most often combined with a cemented cup of another name or from another company. Combining implants that are not designed to fit each other might theoretically lead to unexpected complications such as increased wear, loosening, or dislocation. This concern was raised by the NAR already in their report from 2005 (Norwegian Arthroplasty Register 2005). As the use of reverse hybrids is increasing, we decided to evaluate the short- to medium-term results with this concept and to compare them with those from all-cemented THRs, using data from the NAR.     

Experiences with the Plasmacup--early stability, wear, remodelling, and outcome

Whilst advances in cementing technique have led to improvement in the survival of cemented femoral stems in total hip arthroplasty (THA), cup failure due to aseptic loosening remains a major clinical problem. These observations have led to a move away from cemented cup designs, particularly in young patients, towards uncemented implants. The Plasmacup is a hemispherical, press-fit, cementless, titanium-shelled, acetabular component with a polyethylene liner. In this article we review our experience of its pattern of early migration, wear, bone remodelling, and mid-term survival. In 18 cups followed for 2 years in subjects with a mean age at operation of 58 years, the mean total vectorial cup migration was 0.75 mm, and cup orientation remained stable (EBRA method). The mean polyethylene linear wear rate over this period was 0.21 mm/year. In 27 cups followed for 6 months using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), average bone loss was -5%, and the pelvic bone-remodelling pattern was consistent with the rim-loading principle of the cup design. In a clinical review of the outcome of 128 cups in 104 patients with a mean age at operation of 51 years and follow-up of 59 months, we found that 82% of patients had a good or very good Merle D'Aubigne score, and cup survival rate was 98% (Kaplan-Meier). Four cups had small radiographic areas of focal osteolysis and three had been revised (two for recurrent dislocation and one for deep sepsis; none were revised for aseptic loosening). The mean linear wear rate in this series was 0.14 mm/year. In conclusion, the Plasmacup shows satisfactory early stability, a wear rate similar to other uncemented cups, and favourable mid-term clinical function and survival rates.     

Long-term registration has improved the quality of hip replacement: A review of the Swedish THR Register comparing 160,000 cases

The Swedish Hip Register has defined the epidemiology of total hip replacement in Sweden. Most hip implants are fully cemented. Serious complications and rates of revision have declined significantly despite an increasing number of patients at risk. During the past 5 years, only 8-9% of hip replacements are revisions. Aseptic loosening with or without osteolysis is the major problem and constitutes 71% of the revisions, but the incidence had decreased three times during the past 15 years to less than 3% at 10 years. The effectiveness of the surgical technique is the most important factor for reducing the risk of revision because of aseptic loosening, but choice of implant is also important. In practice, total hip replacement in Sweden has improved, as judged by information from this Register about individualized patient risks, implant safety, and the greater efficacy of surgical and cementing techniques.     

Midterm results in 500 titanium alloy straight femoral stem prostheses -cemented and cementless technique

Summary Mid- and long term stability is still the major challenge in total hip replacement (THR). A consecutive series of cemented 250 cases and of uncemented 250 cases was analyzed in a prospective follow-up study. The femoral component of the BiCONTACT hip stem system with the same design for cemented and uncemented implantation was used. While the cemented stems had a smooth surface, the cementless implants were proximally coated with a microporous titanium plasmaspray (Plasmapore^®). Follow-up time averaged 7 years for cemented and 6.5 years for uncemented THRs. Follow-up rate was 88.7% in cases treated with cemented stems and 93.1% in cases treated with an uncemented stem. The rate of aseptic loosening was 1.2% for the cemented version and 0.4% for the uncemented one. Radiological loosening could be observed in another 1.2% of the cemented stems but was not found in the uncemented cases. Our data suggest excellent midterm stability of both the cemented and the uncemented version of the BiCONTACT hip stem system. Early aseptic loosening especially of the cemented titanium alloy straight stem has not occurred in our series as reported recently. The prosthesis design and follow-up time may therefore play an important role. The long-term results for both cemented and uncemented BiCONTACT prostheses of our series are still to be evaluated.