Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

HIPS REVISED FOR DISLOCATION: WHAT WERE THE RISK FACTORS?



Abstract

Introduction: Dislocation remains one of the most common orthopaedic complications of hip replacement. Surgical technique, implant design and patient factors have been suggested as risk factors. The 2005 AOA Joint Registry recorded data on 101, 952 hip procedures between 1999 and 2004. We analyzed risk factors for early revision in this group of patients.

Methods: Ethics approval was obtained then a formal application was made to the Australian Joint Registry to release the required data. All primary hip replacements between 1/09/1999 – 31/12/2004 were studied. Statistical analyses of traditional risk factors including initial diagnosis, sex, age and head size were performed. We also studied the effect of fixation method on revision for dislocation.

Results: A total of 65,992 primary hip replacements across all diagnoses groups recorded were investigated with regard to diagnosis. The only initial diagnoses with significantly increased relative risk (RR) of revision for dislocation compared to osteoarthritis was fractured neck of femur (RR 2.25, p< 0.0001) and rheumatoid arthritis (RR 1.9, p< 0.01).

58,109 primary hip replacements for osteoarthritis were investigated for effect of age group, sex and fixation method. Age group and sex were not significant risk factors in revision for dislocation. Studying fixation method, cementless acetabular components were implanted more frequently (49,027, 84%) than cemented (9,082, 15.6%). In total, there were 428 (0.7%) revisions for dislocation, 369(0.8%) with a cementless acetabulum and 59 (0.6%) with cemented. Relative risk (cementless v cemented acetabulum adjusted for age group, sex and head size) of 1.59 (CI 1.19 to 2.12, p< 0.01). Head sizes of > 30mm, 28mm, 26mm and 22mm had significantly increasing relative risk (p< 0.001).

Discussion: The results from this large database indicate rheumatoid patients and those after fractured neck of femur have increased risk of revision for dislocation compared to osteoarthritis. Many of the traditional groups thought to be at higher risk of dislocation were not associated with an increased risk of revision for dislocation. These included age group, sex, avascular necrosis, developmental dysplasia and failed internal fixation. Cementless acetabuli have a higher rate of revision for dislocation. This has not been previously reported. Further investigation is needed to identify the cause of this finding.

Correspondence should be addressed to Ms Larissa Welti, Scientific Secretary, EFORT Central Office, Technoparkstrasse 1, CH-8005 Zürich, Switzerland