Dataset Information

Population-based rates of revision of primary total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Most research on failure leading to revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) is reported from single centers. We searched PubMed between January 2000 and August 2010 to identify population- or community-based studies evaluating ten-year revision risks. We report ten-year revision risk using the Kaplan-Meier method, stratifying by age and fixation technique.

Results

Thirteen papers met the inclusion criteria. Cemented prostheses had Kaplan-Meier estimates of revision-free implant survival of ten years ranging from 88% to 95%; uncemented prostheses had Kaplan-Meier estimates from 80% to 85%. Estimates ranged from 72% to 86% in patients less than 60 years old and from 90 to 96% in older patients.

Conclusion

Data reported from national registries suggest revision risks of 5 to 20% ten years following primary THA. Revision risks are lower in older THA recipients. Uncemented implants may have higher ten-year rates of revision, regardless of age.

SUBMITTER: Corbett KL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2958142 | biostudies-literature | 2010 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Population-based rates of revision of primary total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review.

Corbett Kelly L KL Losina Elena E Nti Akosua A AA Prokopetz Julian J Z JJ Katz Jeffrey N JN

PloS one 20101020 10

<h4>Background</h4>Most research on failure leading to revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) is reported from single centers. We searched PubMed between January 2000 and August 2010 to identify population- or community-based studies evaluating ten-year revision risks. We report ten-year revision risk using the Kaplan-Meier method, stratifying by age and fixation technique.<h4>Results</h4>Thirteen papers met the inclusion criteria. Cemented prostheses had Kaplan-Meier estimates of revision-free i ...[more]

PMID: 20976011

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing was developed for younger, active patients as an alternative to THA, but it remains controversial. Study heterogeneity, inconsistent outcome definitions, and unstandardized outcome measures challenge our ability to compare arthroplasty outcomes studies. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES:We asked how early revisions or reoperations (within 5 years of surgery) and overall revisions, adverse events, and postoperative component malalignment compare among studies of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing with THA among patients with hip osteoarthritis. Secondarily, we compared the revision frequency identified in the systematic review with revisions reported in four major joint replacement registries. METHODS:We conducted a systematic review of English language studies published after 1996. Adverse events of interest included rates of early failure, time to revision, revision, reoperation, dislocation, infection/sepsis, femoral neck fracture, mortality, and postoperative component alignment. Revision rates were compared with those from four national joint replacement registries. Results were reported as adverse event rates per 1000 person-years stratified by device market status (in use and discontinued). Comparisons between event rates of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing and THA are made using a quasilikelihood generalized linear model. We identified 7421 abstracts, screened and reviewed 384 full-text articles, and included 236. The most common study designs were prospective cohort studies (46.6%; n = 110) and retrospective studies (36%; n = 85). Few randomized controlled trials were included (7.2%; n = 17). RESULTS:The average time to revision was 3.0 years for metal-on-metal hip resurfacing (95% CI, 2.95-3.1) versus 7.8 for THA (95% CI, 7.2-8.3). For all devices, revisions and reoperations were more frequent with metal-on-metal hip resurfacing than THA based on point estimates and CIs: 10.7 (95% CI, 10.1-11.3) versus 7.1 (95% CI, 6.7-7.6; p = 0.068), and 7.9 (95% CI, 5.4-11.3) versus 1.8 (95% CI, 1.3-2.2; p = 0.084) per 1000 person-years, respectively. This difference was consistent with three of four national joint replacement registries, but overall national joint replacement registries revision rates were lower than those reported in the literature. Dislocations were more frequent with THA than metal-on-metal hip resurfacing: 4.4 (95% CI, 4.2-4.6) versus 0.9 (95% CI, 0.6-1.2; p = 0.008) per 1000 person-years, respectively. Adverse event rates change when discontinued devices were included. CONCLUSIONS:Revisions and reoperations are more frequent and occur earlier with metal-on-metal hip resurfacing, except when discontinued devices are removed from the analyses. Results from the literature may be misleading without consistent definitions, standardized outcome metrics, and accounting for device market status. This is important when clinicians are assessing and communicating patient risk and when selecting which device is most appropriate for individual patients.

Project description:BackgroundBoth modular and monoblock tapered fluted titanium (TFT) stems are increasingly being used for revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA). However, the differences between the two designs in clinical outcomes and complications are not yet clear. Here, we intend to compare the efficacy and safety of modular versus monoblock TFT stems in rTHA.MethodsPubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were searched to include studies comparing modular and monoblock implants in rTHA. Data on the survivorship of stems, postoperative hip function, and complications were extracted following inclusion criteria. Inverse variance and Mantel-Haenszel methods in Review Manager (version 5.3 from Cochrane Collaboration) were used to evaluate differences between the two groups.ResultsTen studies with a total of 2188 hips (1430 modular and 758 monoblock stems) were finally included. The main reason for the revision was aseptic loosening. Paprosky type III was the most common type in both groups. Both stems showed similar re-revision rates (modular vs monoblock: 10.3% vs 9.5%, P = 0.80) and Harris Hip Scores (WMD = 0.43, P = 0.46) for hip function. The intraoperative fracture rate was 11.6% and 5.0% (P = 0.0004) for modular and monoblock stems, respectively. The rate of subsidence > 10 mm was significantly higher in the monoblock group (4.5% vs 1.0%, P = 0.003). The application of extended trochanteric osteotomy was more popular in monoblock stems (22.7% vs 17.5%, P = 0.003). The incidence of postoperative complications such as periprosthetic femoral fracture and dislocation was similar between both stems.ConclusionsNo significant difference was found between modular and monoblock tapered stems as regards postoperative hip function, re-revision rates, and complications. Severe subsidence was more frequent in monoblock stems while modular ones were at higher risk of intraoperative fracture.Level of evidenceLevel III, systematic review of randomized control and non-randomized studies.Trial registrationWe registered our study in the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) (CRD42020213642).

Dataset Information

Population-based rates of revision of primary total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review.

Background

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Population-based rates of revision of primary total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets