58
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The risk of revision due to dislocation after total hip arthroplasty depends on surgical approach, femoral head size, sex, and primary diagnosis : An analysis of 78,098 operations in the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register

      research-article
      1 , 2 ,   3 , 4
      Acta Orthopaedica
      Informa Healthcare

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background and purpose

          The effects of patient-related and technical factors on the risk of revision due to dislocation after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) are only partly understood. We hypothesized that increasing the femoral head size can reduce this risk, that the lateral surgical approach is associated with a lower risk than the posterior and minimally invasive approaches, and that gender and diagnosis influence the risk of revision due to dislocation.

          Patients and methods

          Data on 78,098 THAs in 61,743 patients performed between 2005 and 2010 were extracted from the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. Inclusion criteria were a head size of 22, 28, 32, or 36 mm, or the use of a dual-mobility cup. The covariates age, sex, primary diagnosis, type of surgical approach, and head size were entered into Cox proportional hazards models in order to calculate the adjusted relative risk (RR) of revision due to dislocation, with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

          Results

          After a mean follow-up of 2.7 (0–6) years, 399 hips (0.5%) had been revised due to dislocation. The use of 22-mm femoral heads resulted in a higher risk of revision than the use of 28-mm heads (RR = 2.0, CI: 1.2–3.3). Only 1 of 287 dual-mobility cups had been revised due to dislocation. Compared with the direct lateral approach, minimally invasive approaches were associated with a higher risk of revision due to dislocation (RR = 4.2, CI: 2.3–7.7), as were posterior approaches (RR = 1.3, CI: 1.1–1.7). An increased risk of revision due to dislocation was found for the diagnoses femoral neck fracture (RR = 3.9, CI: 3.1–5.0) and osteonecrosis of the femoral head (RR = 3.7, CI: 2.5–5.5), whereas women were at lower risk than men (RR = 0.8, CI: 0.7–1.0). Restriction of the analysis to the first 6 months after the index procedure gave similar risk estimates.

          Interpretation

          Patients with femoral neck fracture or osteonecrosis of the femoral head are at higher risk of dislocation. Use of the minimally invasive and posterior approaches also increases this risk, and we raise the question of whether patients belonging to risk groups should be operated using lateral approaches. The use of femoral head diameters above 28 mm or of dual-mobility cups reduced this risk in a clinically relevant manner, but this observation was not statistically significant.

          Related collections

          Most cited references31

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Uncemented and cemented primary total hip arthroplasty in the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register

          Background and purpose Since the introduction of total hip arthroplasty (THA) in Sweden, both components have most commonly been cemented. A decade ago the frequency of uncemented fixation started to increase, and this change in practice has continued. We therefore analyzed implant survival of cemented and uncemented THA, and whether the modes of failure differ between the two methods of fixation. Patients and methods All patients registered in the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register between 1992 and 2007 who received either totally cemented or totally uncemented THA were identified (n = 170,413). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis with revision of any component, and for any reason, as the endpoints was performed. Cox regression models were used to calculate risk ratios (RRs) for revision for various reasons, adjusted for sex, age, and primary diagnosis. Results Revision-free 10-year survival of uncemented THA was lower than that of cemented THA (85% vs. 94%, p < 0.001). No age or diagnosis groups benefited from the use of uncemented fixation. Cox regression analysis confirmed that uncemented THA had a higher risk of revision for any reason (RR = 1.5, 95% CI: 1.4–1.6) and for aseptic loosening (RR = 1.5, CI: 1.3–1.6). Uncemented cup components had a higher risk of cup revision due to aseptic loosening (RR = 1.8, CI: 1.6–2.0), whereas uncemented stem components had a lower risk of stem revision due to aseptic loosening (RR = 0.4, CI: 0.3–0.5) when compared to cemented components. Uncemented stems were more frequently revised due to periprosthetic fracture during the first 2 postoperative years than cemented stems (RR = 8, CI: 5–14). The 5 most common uncemented cups had no increased risk of revision for any reason when compared with the 5 most commonly used cemented cups (RR = 0.9, CI: 0.6–1.1). There was no significant difference in the risk of revision due to infection between cemented and uncemented THA. Interpretation Survival of uncemented THA is inferior to that of cemented THA, and this appears to be mainly related to poorer performance of uncemented cups. Uncemented stems perform better than cemented stems; however, unrecognized intraoperative femoral fractures may be an important reason for early failure of uncemented stems. The risk of revision of the most common uncemented cup designs is similar to that of cemented cups, indicating that some of the problems with uncemented cup fixation may have been solved.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Effect of femoral head diameter and operative approach on risk of dislocation after primary total hip arthroplasty.

            It has been postulated that use of a larger femoral head could reduce the risk of dislocation after total hip arthroplasty, but only limited clinical data have been presented as proof of this hypothesis. From 1969 to 1999, 21,047 primary total hip arthroplasties with varying femoral head sizes were performed at one institution. Patients routinely were followed at defined intervals and were specifically queried about dislocation. The operative approach was anterolateral in 9155 arthroplasties, posterolateral in 3646, and transtrochanteric in 8246. The femoral head diameter was 22 mm in 8691 of the procedures, 28 mm in 8797, and 32 mm in 3559. One or more dislocations occurred in 868 of the 21,047 hips. The cumulative risk of first-time dislocation was 2.2% at one year, 3.0% at five years, 3.8% at ten years, and 6.0% at twenty years. The cumulative ten-year rate of dislocation was 3.1% following anterolateral approaches, 3.4% following transtrochanteric approaches, and 6.9% following posterolateral approaches. The cumulative ten-year rate of dislocation was 3.8% for 22-mm-diameter femoral heads, 3.0% for 28-mm heads, and 2.4% for 32-mm heads in hips treated with an anterolateral approach; 3.5% for 22-mm heads, 3.5% for 28-mm heads, and 2.8% for 32-mm heads in hips treated with a transtrochanteric approach; and 12.1% for 22-mm heads, 6.9% for 28-mm heads, and 3.8% for 32-mm heads in hips treated with a posterolateral approach. Multivariate analysis showed the relative risk of dislocation to be 1.7 for 22-mm compared with 32-mm heads and 1.3 for 28-mm compared with 32-mm heads. In total hip arthroplasty, a larger femoral head diameter was associated with a lower long-term cumulative risk of dislocation. The femoral head diameter had an effect in association with all operative approaches, but the effect was greatest in association with the posterolateral approach.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Hip disease and the prognosis of total hip replacements. A review of 53,698 primary total hip replacements reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register 1987-99.

              We studied the rates of revision for 53,698 primary total hip replacements (THRs) in nine different groups of disease. Factors which have previously been shown to be associated with increased risk of revision, such as male gender, young age, or certain types of uncemented prosthesis, showed important differences between the diagnostic groups. Without adjustment for these factors we observed an increased risk of revision in patients with paediatric hip diseases and in a small heterogeneous 'other' group, compared with patients with primary osteoarthritis. Most differences were reduced or disappeared when an adjustment for the prognostic factors was made. After adjustment, an increased relative risk (RR) of revision compared with primary osteoarthritis was seen in hips with complications after fracture of the femoral neck (RR = 1.3, p = 0.0005), in hips with congenital dislocation (RR = 1.3, p = 0.03), and in the heterogenous 'other' group. The analyses were also undertaken in a more homogenous subgroup of 16,217 patients which had a Charnley prosthesis implanted with high-viscosity cement. The only difference in this group was an increased risk for revision in patients who had undergone THR for complications after fracture of the femoral neck (RR = 1.5, p = 0.0005). THR for diagnoses seen mainly among young patients had a good prognosis, but they had more often received inferior uncemented implants. If a cemented Charnley prosthesis is used, the type of disease leading to THR seems in most cases to have only a minor influence on the survival of the prosthesis.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Acta Orthop
                Acta Orthop
                ORT
                Acta Orthopaedica
                Informa Healthcare
                1745-3674
                1745-3682
                October 2012
                22 October 2012
                : 83
                : 5
                : 442-448
                Affiliations
                1Department of Orthopaedics, Institute of Surgical Sciences, Uppsala University Hospital , Uppsala
                2Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Section of Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Karolinska University Hospital , Stockholm
                3Department of Clinical Sciences, Danderyd Hospital, Karolinska Institutet , Stockholm
                4Department of Orthopaedics, Institute of Surgical Science, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Göteborg University , Mölndal, Sweden
                Author notes
                Article
                ORT_A_733919_O
                10.3109/17453674.2012.733919
                3488169
                23039167
                4bc38ab4-337b-49eb-a560-320c5441364b
                Copyright: © Nordic Orthopaedic Federation

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the source is credited.

                History
                : 24 April 2012
                : 06 July 2012
                Categories
                Register Studies

                Orthopedics
                Orthopedics

                Comments

                Comment on this article