Abstract
The ODEP (Orthopaedic Data Evaluation Panel) rating system should offer a surgeon and patient extra information when making a choice on which implant to use. However, in the current economic environment, ratings may also influence implant choice by contracting bodies. Our aim was to determine the performance of commonly used Acetabular and femoral components in our unit and compare these to their published ODEP ratings (or absence of rating).
We analysed all of the following primary THR components (12,792) for revision for any reason, using same date ranges as ODEP where more than 100 implantations had occurred. Hip components: Trinity (3A in 2013), Trilogy (10A* in 2016), Atlas (10A in 2013), Trilogy TMT (10A 2010) Durom (not rated), BHR (10A, 2010), ACCIS (not rated); Femoral components: Taperfit (10A in 2013), Taperloc (10A* in 2016), Metafix (3A in 2013), CPT (10A in 2012), Ecofit (not Rated), ESOP (not rated), Minihip (3A 2013), Durom (not rated), BHR (10A 2010), ACCIS (not rated).
Analysis of Kaplan Meier survival curves was undertaken for all components. The rated components and non-rated components were compared using HR and logrank tests for all time groups when ratings were introduced. No statistical difference was observed in any group except for the Trinity cup which had a 98.2% (1344 cups) survival at 6 years.
Component survival in our unit was better than ODEP suggested failure for A category of not more than 1% per year, for all components.
Whilst we applaud the intention to improve data available for prostheses, the present ODEP system does not distinguish between performances of different implants in our unit. We therefore recommend care when relying upon ODEP ratings to make clinical or contracting decisions.
