SURFACE REPLACEMENT ARTHROPLASTY IN THE NARA DATA BASE

Abstract

Introduction: There is an increasing interest in surface replacement arthroplasty (SRA) as an alternative to conventional THA (cTHA) in young and active patients. However, there has been considerable variability in reported outcomes. National joint registry reports have shown increased revision rates compared to cTHA. We analysed outcome measured as non-septic revision rate within two years for SRA in the NARA data base (Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association).

Materials and Methods: 1638 SRA and 163802 cTHA with age up to 73 years and a non-fracture diagnosis, operated from 1995 to 2007, were compared using Cox multiple regression including age, gender, diagnosis, nation and prosthesis type with cTHA divided into cemented, uncemented, hybrid and reversed hybrid fixation. Men below 50 years of age (460 SRA and 7185 cTHA) were analysed as a subset. The SRA cohort with a mean follow-up 1,8 years was also analysed with the same method including age, gender, diagnosis, number of performed SRA per hospital and the four most commonly used prosthesis designs. In an additional analysis femoral head diameter was added, reducing the number of cases to 1552. results are presented as relative risk (RR) with 95 % confidence interval(CI).

Results: SRA had a more than twofold increased revision risk compared to cTHA, RR=2,50 (1,67–3,70), which increased to 3,63 (2,42–5,44) when compared with all cemented THA. In the subpopulation of men below 50 years of age, there was no difference between SRA and any of the cTHA cathegories. Within the SRA group RR was reduced by male gender, RR=0,46 (0,25–0,86), in hospital performing > 70 SRA (RR=0,26, 0,11–0,60) and with use of BHR (Birmingham Hip Resurfacing) compared to all other designs (RR=0,27, 0,12–0,61). The size of the femoral head diameter had no significant influence on the early revision rate.

Discussion and Conclusion: Surface replacement arthroplasty has an increased risk of early revision compared to conventional and cemented THA except for men below 50 years of age. There is a learning curve on the hospital level. Cases with secondary osteoarthritis were comparatively few and were mainly caused by pediatric hip disease. SRA might become an alternative for young men, but our follow up is too short to determine if this indication remains in the longer perspective.