A Modular Head-Neck Adapter System and Ceramic Heads in Revision Hip Arthroplasty: A Registry Study on 354 Implants

Abstract

BackgroundFive- to 10-year outcomes of a modular head-neck adapter system with ceramic heads in revision hip arthroplasty on large populations are still lacking. A registry study about modular adapter system with Delta ceramic head in revisions was designed, aiming to assess (1) the survival rates of the device, (2) the reasons for re-revisions of the device, and (3) a comparison to factory assembled titanium sleeve and Delta head cohort in revision hips. MethodsUsing a regional arthroplasty registry, we investigated the modular adapter system with a ceramic head in revision hips. Demographics, implant features, and reasons for revision were recorded. Survival rates and reasons for re-revision were assessed. The modular adapter system with the ceramic ball was compared to a factory-assembled ceramic titanium-sleeved head in revisions, acting as a control group. There were 354 revisions included at a mean follow-up of 5 years (range, 0 to 13). ResultsThe 5- and 7-year survival rates were 87.9% and 86.9%, respectively. Dislocations (2.8%) and cup aseptic loosening (4.2%) were the 2 most frequent reasons for re-revision. No breakage of the adapter system or the ceramic head occurred. A femoral neck failed (0.3%). No implant features, offset (P = .088) or skirted (P = .870) tapers, impacted on failures. No differences between the 2 cohorts were found regarding survival rates (P = .696) and reasons for re-revision (dislocations, P = .983; cup aseptic loosening, P = .296). ConclusionThe modular head neck adapter system with a ceramic head seems to be a valid option in revisions at 5 and 7 years, without additional risk of implant breakage in this registry.