Advertisement

Irish Journal of Medical Science (1971 -)

, Volume 188, Issue 3, pp 873–877 | Cite as

Primary total hip arthroplasty: registry data for fixation methods and bearing options at a minimum of 10 years

  • Gerard A. Sheridan
  • Raymond M. Kelly
  • Suzanne M. McDonnell
  • Fionnuala Walsh
  • John M. O’Byrne
  • Patrick J. Kenny
Original Article

Abstract

Background

Registry data for total hip arthroplasty (THA) has allowed optimal fixation methods, bearing surfaces and many other factors to be assessed. We describe 10-year THA outcomes from an Irish perspective using regional THA registry data for the first time.

Aims

We assess the main predictors of revision in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) using regional registry data.

Methods

This was a prospective study of registry data from a National Orthopaedic Hospital for all THAs with 10-year follow-up data. All metal-on-metal THAs and resurfacings were excluded from the analysis. All-cause revision was the primary outcome. Univariate and multivariate analyses controlling for confounding variables were performed to assess predictor impact on primary and secondary outcomes.

Results

A total of 1697 THAs were performed in 1553 patients. The three significant predictors for all-cause revision were fixation type (p < 0.01), surface bearing type (p < 0.01) and femoral head size (p < 0.05). The lowest 10-year all-cause revision rates were seen in cemented THRs at 1.2%. Ceramic-on-poly bearings had the lowest revision rate at 0.9%. The 22.225-mm head sizes had a significantly lower revision rate than other head sizes (p < 0.05). The causes for revision in order of decreasing frequency were infection (0.7%), dislocation (0.4%), periprosthetic fracture (0.2%) and aseptic loosening (0.1%). There were two re-revisions at 10 years in total.

Conclusions

Based on this registry and other emerging registry data, the shift towards uncemented THAs may not be fully supported. We also acknowledge that ceramic-on-polyethylene bearings afford the lowest revision rates in this registry.

Keywords

Arthroplasty Cemented Ceramic Hip Revision 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

Full ethical approval was granted by the local research ethics committee.

For this type of study formal consent is not required.

This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. 1.
    Lehil MS, Bozic KJ (2014) Trends in total hip arthroplasty implant utilization in the United States. J Arthroplast 29(10):1915–1918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kumar A, Bloch BV, Esler C (2017) Trends in total hip arthroplasty in young patients - results from a regional register. Hip Int 27(5):443–448CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cook RE, Jenkins PJ, Walmsley PJ, Patton JT, Robinson CM (2008) Risk factors for periprosthetic fractures of the hip: a survivorship analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 466(7):1652–1656CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lindberg-Larsen M, Jorgensen CC, Solgaard S et al (2017) Increased risk of intraoperative and early postoperative periprosthetic femoral fracture with uncemented stems. Acta Orthop 88(4):390–394CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wechter J, Comfort TK, Tatman P, Mehle S, Gioe TJ (2013) Improved survival of uncemented versus cemented femoral stems in patients aged < 70 years in a community total joint registry. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471(11):3588–3595CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Meding JBRM, Davis KE, Hillery M (2016) Cemented and uncemented total hip arthroplasty using the same femoral component. Hip Int 26(1):62–66CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hughes RE, Batra A, Hallstrom BR (2017) Arthroplasty registries around the world: valuable sources of hip implant revision risk data. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 10(2):240–252CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hailer NP, Garellick G, Karrholm J (2010) Uncemented and cemented primary total hip arthroplasty in the Swedish hip arthroplasty register. Acta Orthop 81(1):34–41CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sharplin PWM, Rothwell A, Frampton C et al (2017) Which is the best bearing surface for primary total hip replacement? A New Zealand Joint Registry study. Hip Int 28(4):352–362.  https://doi.org/10.5301/hipint.5000585
  10. 10.
    Pomeroy E, Rowan F, Masterson E (2015) Atraumatic fracture of a BIOLOX Delta ceramic femoral head articulating with a polyethylene liner: a case report. JBJS Case Connect 5(4):e112CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lim SJRH, Eun HJ, Park CW et al (2018) Clinical outcomes and bearing-specific complications following fourth-generation alumina ceramic-on-ceramic total hip arthroplasty: a single-surgeon sof 749 hips at a minimum of 5-year follow-up. J Arthroplasty 33:2182–2186.e1CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rowan FE, Benjamin B, Pietrak JR, Haddad FS (2018) Prevention of dislocation after total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 33:1316–1324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lachiewicz PF, Soileau ES, Martell JM (2016) Wear and osteolysis of highly crosslinked polyethylene at 10 to 14 years: the effect of femoral head size. Clin Orthop Relat Res 474(2):365–371CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Academy of Medicine in Ireland 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gerard A. Sheridan
    • 1
    • 2
  • Raymond M. Kelly
    • 1
  • Suzanne M. McDonnell
    • 1
  • Fionnuala Walsh
    • 1
  • John M. O’Byrne
    • 1
  • Patrick J. Kenny
    • 1
  1. 1.Cappagh National Orthopaedic HospitalFinglasIreland
  2. 2.LobinstownIreland

Personalised recommendations