Abstract

Background and purpose — There is no consensus on best method of fixation in hip arthroplasty. We investigated different modes of fixation in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) and the influence of age and sex, to assess need for a differentiated approach.Patients and methods — The study was based on data from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register in the period 2005–2017. Included were all-cemented, all-uncemented, reverse hybrid (uncemented stem and cemented cup), and hybrid (cemented stem and uncemented cup) THA designs that were commonly used, contemporary and well documented, using different causes of revision as endpoints.Results — From the included 66,995 primary THAs, 2,242 (3.3%) were revised. Compared with all-cemented THAs, all-uncemented had a higher risk of revision due to any cause (RR 1.4; CI 1.2–1.6), mainly due to an increased risk of periprosthetic fracture (RR 5.2; CI 3.2–8.5) and dislocation (RR 2.2; CI 1.5–3.0). Women had considerably higher risk of revision due to periprosthetic fracture after all-uncemented THA (RR 12; CI 6–25), compared with cemented. All-uncemented THAs in women of age 55–75 years (RR 1.3; CI 1.0–1.7) and over 75 years of age (RR 1.8; CI 1.2–2.7), and reverse hybrid THAs in women over the age of 75 (RR 1.5; CI 1.1–1.9) had higher risk of revision compared with cemented. Hybrid THAs (RR 1.0; CI 0.9–1.2) and reverse hybrid THAs (RR 1.0; CI 0.7–1.3) had similar risk of revision due to any cause as cemented THAs.Interpretation — Uncemented stems (all-uncemented and reverse hybrid THAs) had increased risk of revision in women over 55 years of age, mainly due to periprosthetic fracture and dislocation, and should probably not be used in THA in these patients.

Highlights

  • We investigated different modes of fixation in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) and the influence of age and sex, to assess need for a differentiated approach

  • Patients and methods — The study was based on data from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register in the period 2005–2017

  • Cemented THAs have been reported to be prone to aseptic loosening, mostly in younger patients, and in the long term, whereas THAs with uncemented components have been prone to revisions due to femoral fractures, dislocations, and infections, often early postoperatively (Pedersen et al 2014)

Read more

Summary

Cemented Uncemented Reverse hybrid

Spectron EF2, Lubinus SP23, Charnley Modular Corail, Filler, Hactiv Corail, Filler, Hactiv. Elite, IP/SP13, Contemporary, Marathon, Exeter X3 Rimfit, Reflection (XLPE) Reflection uncemented, Trilogy, Igloo, Trident, Pinnacle, R32 Exeter, Elite, IP/SP13, Contemporary, Marathon, Exeter X3 Rimfit, Reflection (XLPE) Reflection uncemented, Trilogy, Trident, Pinnacle, R32. 2 Smith & Nephew, 3 Waldemar LINK, 4 DePuy, 5 Biotechni, 6 Evolutis, 7 Zimmer Biomet

Patients and methods
Surgical approach
Age at primary THA
Reverse hybrid
Periprosthetic fracture
Hybrid Cemented
Findings
Strengths and limitations
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call