Dataset Information

Dual Mobility Total Hip Arthroplasty Is Not Associated with a Greater Incidence of Groin Pain in Comparison with Conventional Total Hip Arthroplasty and Hip Resurfacing:A Retrospective Comparative Study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Groin pain is a common long-term complication of total hip arthroplasty (THA). Femoral head size has been proposed as one of the primary causes. The implants used in dual mobility (DM) THA have large outer-bearing articulations, which could increase the risk of post-operative groin pain. Hip resurfacing (HR), too, has been shown to be associated with a risk of groin pain.

Questions/purposes

The goals of this study were to compare the incidence of groin pain at 1 year after hip arthroplasty in patients with different femoral head diameters and in patients undergoing conventional THA, DM THA, and HR.

Methods

After combing an institutional registry for all patients who had undergone THA or HR for primary hip osteoarthritis, we included 3193 patients in the analysis; 2008 underwent conventional THA, 416 underwent DM THA, and 769 underwent HR. We used logistic regression modeling to analyze the relation of groin pain at 1 year after surgery to patient demographics and clinical characteristics, including age, sex, body mass index (BMI), University of California at Los Angeles activity score at 1 year after surgery, bearing couple, and the ratio of acetabular diameter to femoral head diameter. We also measured cup inclination and anteversion in a subset of patients with and without groin pain at 1 year to assess whether pain could be related to implant position.

Results

Overall, 8.7% of patients reported groin pain at 1 year. Patients with groin pain were younger and had lower BMIs. There were increased odds of groin pain with a greater cup-to-head ratio, although DM implants, interestingly, were not significantly associated with groin pain; this may be attributable to so much of their movement taking place inside the implant. Subgroup analysis measuring cup inclination and anteversion showed no difference in cup position between patients with and without pain.

Conclusion

In this population of hip arthroplasty patients, the incidence of groin pain 1 year after surgery did not differ among patients undergoing DM and conventional THA; DM THA in particular was not associated with a higher risk of groin pain, despite its comparatively larger femoral head sizes. HR, on the other hand, was associated with a higher risk of pain. Appropriate implant sizing and bearing couple choice may optimize the functional benefit of THA.

SUBMITTER: Stavrakis AI

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7749877 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

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:BACKGROUND: Modern metal-on-metal hip resurfacing was introduced as a bone-preserving method of joint reconstruction for young and active patients; however, the large diameter of the bearing surfaces is of concern for potentially increased metal ion release. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 71 patients (< 65 years old) were randomly assigned to receive either a resurfacing (R) hip arthroplasty (n = 38) or a conventional metal-on-metal (C) hip arthroplasty (n = 33). Functional outcomes were assessed preoperatively and at 6, 12, and 24 months. Cobalt and chromium blood levels were analyzed preoperatively and at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months. RESULTS: All functional outcome scores improved for both groups. At 12 and 24 months, the median UCLA activity score was 8 in the R patients and 7 in the C patients (p < 0.05). At 24 months, OHS was median 16 in C patients and 13 in R patients (p < 0.05). However, in spite of randomization, UCLA scores also appeared to be higher in R patients at baseline. Satisfaction was similar in both groups at 24 months. Cobalt concentrations were statistically significantly higher for R patients only at 3 and 6 months. Chromium levels remained significantly higher for R patients until 24 months. No pseudotumors were encountered in either group. One R patient was revised for early aseptic loosening and in 2 C patients a cup insert was exchanged for recurrent dislocation. INTERPRETATION: R patients scored higher on UCLA, OHS, and satisfaction at some time points; however, as for the UCLA, preoperative levels were already in favor of R. The differences, although statistically significant, were of minor clinical importance. Chromium blood levels were statistically significantly higher for R patients at all follow-up measurements, whereas for cobalt this was only observed up to 6 months. The true value of resurfacing hip arthroplasty over conventional metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty will be determined by longer follow-up and a possible shift of balance between their respective (dis)advantages.