Document Detail

The design of the acetabular component and size of the femoral head influence the risk of revision following 34 721 single-brand cemented hip replacements: A retrospective cohort study of medium-term data from a National Joint Registry.
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  23188900     Owner:  NLM     Status:  In-Data-Review    
Despite excellent results, the use of cemented total hip replacement (THR) is declining. This retrospective cohort study records survival time to revision following primary cemented THR using the most common combination of components that accounted for almost a quarter of all cemented THRs, exploring risk factors independently associated with failure. All patients with osteoarthritis who had an Exeter V40/Contemporary THR (Stryker) implanted before 31 December 2010 and recorded in the National Joint Registry for England and Wales were included in the analysis. Cox's proportional hazard models were used to analyse the extent to which risk of revision was related to patient, surgeon and implant covariates, with a significance threshold of p < 0.01. A total of 34 721 THRs were included in the study. The overall seven-year rate of revision for any reason was 1.70% (99% confidence interval (CI) 1.28 to 2.12). In the final adjusted model the risk of revision was significantly higher in THRs with the Contemporary hooded component (hazard ratio (HR) 1.88, p < 0.001) than with the flanged version, and in smaller head sizes (< 28 mm) compared with 28 mm diameter heads (HR 1.50, p = 0.005). The seven-year revision rate was 1.16% (99% CI 0.69 to 1.63) with a 28 mm diameter head and flanged component. The overall risk of revision was independent of age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, body mass index, surgeon volume, surgical approach, brand of cement/presence of antibiotic, femoral head material (stainless steel/alumina) and stem taper size/offset. However, the risk of revision for dislocation was significantly higher with a 'plus' offset head (HR 2.05, p = 0.003) and a hooded acetabular component (HR 2.34, p < 0.001). In summary, we found that there were significant differences in failure between different designs of acetabular component and sizes of femoral head after adjustment for a range of covariates.
S S Jameson; P N Baker; J Mason; P J Gregg; N Brewster; D J Deehan; M R Reed
Publication Detail:
Type:  Journal Article    
Journal Detail:
Title:  The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume     Volume:  94     ISSN:  0301-620X     ISO Abbreviation:  J Bone Joint Surg Br     Publication Date:  2012 Dec 
Date Detail:
Created Date:  2012-11-28     Completed Date:  -     Revised Date:  -    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  0375355     Medline TA:  J Bone Joint Surg Br     Country:  England    
Other Details:
Languages:  eng     Pagination:  1611-7     Citation Subset:  AIM; IM    
The National Joint Registry for England and Wales, UK.
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine

Previous Document:  Cemented polyethylene and cementless porous-coated acetabular components have similar outcomes at a ...
Next Document:  The results of uncemented total hip replacement in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis at te...