The influence of bearing surfaces on periprosthetic hip infections: analysis of thirty nine thousand, two hundred and six cementless total hip arthroplasties
- 93 Downloads
Periprosthetic hip infection (PHI) is a devastating complication. The association between PHI and bearing surfaces as well as patient-related factors has been recently investigated, with contradictive outcomes. The dataset of Emilia-Romagna region Registry for Orthopaedic Prosthetic Implants (RIPO) has been assessed to investigate, if the bearing choice influenced the risk of septic loosening occurrence.
RIPO data about 39,206 cementless total hip arthroplasties (THA), collected since 2003, were analysed. Age, gender, BMI, diabetes and bearing surfaces were evaluated. The end point of the study was the revision of at least a single component due to sepsis.
Adjusted and unadjusted survival rates showed that ceramic-on-ceramic (COC) implants had the lower incidence of PHIs, whereas metal-on-metal (MOM) THAs were significantly more prone to infection. In MOM cohort, stemmed implants were involved in 28 out of 30 cases. Among the demographical features and comorbid conditions, only diabetes statistically influenced the rate of sepsis.
Bearing surfaces influenced the rate of PHI; in particular, stemmed MOM implants were at higher risk, probably due to metal debris consequent to taperosis. Despite the preliminary results, stemmed MOM THAs should be used with care, and diabetic patients should be warned about increased septic risks.
KeywordsSeptic loosening Articular coupling Diabetes Ceramic Metal Polyethylene
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The senior author is paid consultant for Zimmer (Warsaw, US), Adler Ortho (Milan, Italy) and CeramTec (Plochingen, Germany). The other authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval was not necessary as the registry collects personal data as standard practice and conceals the identity of the patients.
- 2.Kobayashi S, Kubo T, Iwamoto Y, Fukushima W, Sugano N. (2018) Nationwide multicenter follow-up cohort study of hip arthroplasties performed for osteonecrosis of the femoral head. Int Orthop. 2018 may 12. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-018-3980-1
- 3.Triantafyllopoulos GK, Soranoglou VG, Memtsoudis SG, Sculco TP, Poultsides LA (2017) Rate and risk factors for periprosthetic joint infection among 36,494 primary total hip arthroplasties. J Arthroplast. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2017.11.040
- 9.Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. Annual report 2017. https://aoanjrr.sahmri.com/. Accessed 18 Febraury 2018
- 11.RIPO. Annual Report 2015. https://ripo.cineca.it, Accessed 19 February 2018
- 12.Ali A, Sundberg M, Robertsson O, Dahlberg LE, Thorstensson CA, Redlund-Johnell I, Kristiansson I, Lindstrand A (2014) Dissatisfied patients after total knee arthroplasty: a registry study involving 114 patients with 8-13 years of followup. Acta Orthop 85(3):229–233CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 14.Tao R, Liu F, Liu YK, Lu Y, Xu H, Cao Y, Zhou ZY, Wang W (2018) A prospective comparative study of hip resurfacing arthroplasty and large-diameter head metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty in younger patients-a minimum of five year follow-up. Int Orthop. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-018-3819-9
- 16.National Joint Registry. Annual report 2017. http://www.njrcentre.org.uk. Accessed 19 February 2018