header advert
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

General Orthopaedics

WHY HIP IMPLANTS FAIL: PATIENT, SURGEON, OR DEVICE?

Current Concepts in Joint Replacement (CCJR) – Spring 2014



Abstract

In the Registry Era, in the Information Age, and with a competitive and expanding marketplace, the focus has been on the prosthetic joint devices. However, a distinction should be made between mechanical failure of a device, failure of an arthroplasty, and the limitations of technology. The patient and the surgeon play central roles in the majority of revisions (failure of an arthroplasty). Analysis of a large United States database indicates that the most common causes of revision are instability/dislocation (22.5%), mechanical loosening (19.7%), and infection (14.8%). Acetabular component position has been linked to higher wear and instability. Increased odds of component mal-position were found with lower-volume surgeons and patients with a higher body mass index. Medical co-morbidities significantly increase the risk for revision within 12 months of surgery. Patient demographics and pre-operative status have been shown to be more important than implant factors in predicting the presence of thigh pain, dissatisfaction, and a low hip score. The most predictive factors were ethnicity, educational level, poverty level, income, and a low pre-operative WOMAC score or pre-operative SF-12 mental component score.