Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 6 of 6
Results per page:
Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 106-B, Issue SUPP_16 | Pages 46 - 46
19 Aug 2024
Rilby K van Veghel MHW van Steenbergen LN Lewis P Mohaddes M Kärrholm J Schreurs W Hannink G
Full Access

Short-stem total hip arthroplasty (THA) may have bone sparing properties, which could be advantageous in a younger population with high risk of future revision surgery. We used data from the AOANJRR, LROI and SAR to compare survival rates of primary THA, stems used in the first-time revision procedures as well as the overall survival of first-time revisions between a cohort of short-stem and standard-stem THA.

Short-stem THAs (designed as a short stem with mainly metaphyseal fixation) between 2007 and 2021 were identified (n=16,258). A propensity score matched cohort (1:2) with standard THAs in each register was identified (n=32,515). The cohorts were merged into a research dataset. Overall survival at 12 years follow-up was calculated using Kaplan-Meier survival analyses. Stem revisions (short-stem THA n=239, standard-stem THA n=352) were identified. The type of revision stem was classified as standard (<160 mm) or long (>160 mm). The survival rate of all first-time revisions in the two groups was calculated using any type of revision as outcome.

The 12 year- overall survival rate (all revisions, all causes) for primary short-stem THAs was 95.3% (CI 94.5–95.9%), which was comparable to 95.2% (CI 94.7–95.7%) for standard-stem THAs. In the short-stem THA group, a standard stem (<160 mm) was more often (59%) used in the first-time revision than in the standard-stem group (47%, p=0.004). The overall survival of the first-time revisions did not differ between cases primarily operated with a short or a standard stem.

In our multi-national register study, the overall survival rate of short stems was similar to that of standard stems. In short stem revisions there was a higher likelihood of using a standard-length stem for the revision compared with first-time revisions of standard stems. This finding might indicate bone-sparing properties with short-stemmed THAs.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 105-B, Issue SUPP_12 | Pages 17 - 17
23 Jun 2023
Schreurs BW van Veghel MH van der Koelen RE Hannink G Rijnen WH
Full Access

Although data on uncemented short stems are available, studies on cemented short-stemmed THAs are limited. These cemented short stems may have inferior long-term outcomes and higher femoral component fracture rates. Hence, we examined the long-term follow-up of cemented short Exeter stems used in primary THA.

Within the Exeter stem range, 7 stems have a stem length of 125 mm or less. These stems are often used in small patients, in young patients with a narrow femoral canal or patients with anatomical abnormalities. Based on our local database, we included 394 consecutive cemented stems used in primary THA (n=333 patients) with a stem length ≤125 mm implanted in our tertiary referral center between 1993 and December 2021. We used the Dutch Arthroplasty Registry (LROI) to complete and cross-check the data. Kaplan-Meier survival analyses were performed to determine 20-year survival rates with stem revision for any reason, for septic loosening, for aseptic loosening and for femoral component fracture as endpoints.

The proportion of male patients was 21% (n=83). Median age at surgery was 42 years (interquartile range: 30–55). The main indication for primary THA was childhood hip diseases (51%). The 20-year stem survival rate of the short stem was 85.4% (95% CI: 73.9–92.0) for revision for any reason and 96.2% (95%CI: 90.5–98.5) for revision for septic loosening. No stems were revised for aseptic femoral loosening. However, there were 4 stem fractures at 6.6, 11.6, 16.5 and 18.2 years of follow-up. The stem survival with femoral component fracture as endpoint was 92.7% (CI: 78.5–97.6) at 20 years.

Cemented short Exeter stems in primary THA show acceptable survival rates at long-term follow-up. Although femoral component fracture is a rare complication of a cemented short Exeter stem, orthopaedic surgeons should be aware of its incidence and possible risk factors.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 104-B, Issue 3 | Pages 368 - 375
1 Mar 2022
Kuijpers MFL Colo E Schmitz MWJL Hannink G Rijnen WHC Schreurs BW

Aims

The aim of this study was to determine the outcome of all primary total hip arthroplasties (THAs) and their subsequent revision procedures in patients aged under 50 years performed at our institution.

Methods

All 1,049 primary THAs which were undertaken in 860 patients aged under 50 years between 1988 and 2018 in our tertiary care institution were included. We used cemented implants in both primary and revision surgery. Impaction bone grafting was used in patients with acetabular or femoral bone defects. Kaplan-Meier analyses were used to determine the survival of primary and revision THA with the endpoint of revision for any reason, and of revision for aseptic loosening.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 103-B, Issue SUPP_14 | Pages 19 - 19
1 Nov 2021
Schreurs B Kuijpers M van Steenbergen L Hannink G
Full Access

The increasing number of total hip arthroplasty (THA) used in young patients will inevitably lead to more revision procedures at younger ages, especially since the outcome of primary THA in young patients is already inferior compared to older patients. However, these data are lacking in literature. The aim of this study was to determine the survival of both acetabular and femoral components placed during primary and revision hip arthroplasty in patients under 55 years using Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI) data.

All primary THA registered in the LROI between 2007–2018 in patients under 55 years were selected (n=25,682). Subsequent cup- and stem revision procedures were included. Kaplan-Meier survival analyses were used to estimate the survival probability of primary and revised cup- and stem components.

Mean follow-up of primary cups and stems was 5.8 years (SD 3.2) and 5.9 years (SD 3.2), respectively. In total, 659 cup revision procedures and 532 stem revision procedures were registered. Most common reason for cup revision was acetabular loosening (n=163), most common reason for stem revision was femoral loosening (n=202). Primary cup survival for any reason at 10 years follow-up was 96.1% (95%CI: 95.7–96.4). For primary stems, 10 year survival for any reason was 97.1% (95%CI: 96.7–97.3). Mean follow-up of all revision procedures was 4.1 years (SD 2.9). Out of 659 cup revisions, 113 cup re-revisions were registered. Survival of revised cups, with end-point cup re-revision for any reason was 82.2% (95%CI: 78.8–85.1) at 5 years follow-up. Out of 532 stem revisions, 89 stem re-revisions were registered. For revised stems, survival at 5 year follow-up, with endpoint stem re-revision for any reason was 82.0% (95%CI: 78.2–85.2).

The outcome of revised acetabular and femoral components is worrisome, with a survival of 82% at 5 years follow-up. This information is valuable to provide realistic expectations for these young patients at time of primary THA.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 101-B, Issue 1 | Pages 96 - 103
1 Jan 2019
Colo E Leenders LAM Rijnen WHC Schreurs BW Hannink G

Aims

The aim of this study was to analyze the effect of a lateral rim mesh on the survival of primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) in young patients, aged 50 years or younger.

Patients and Methods

We compared a study group of 235 patients (257 hips) who received a primary THA with the use of impaction bone grafting (IBG) with an additional lateral rim mesh with a group of 306 patients (343 hips) who received IBG in the absence of a lateral rim mesh during the same period from 1988 to 2015. In the mesh group, there were 74 male and 183 female patients, with a mean age of 35 years (13 to 50). In the no-mesh group, there were 173 male and 170 female patients, with a mean age of 38 years (12.6 to 50). Cox regression analyses were performed to study the effect of a lateral rim mesh on acetabular component survival. Kaplan–Meier analyses with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were performed to estimate the survival of the acetabular implant.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 97-B, Issue 1 | Pages 19 - 23
1 Jan 2015
den Hartog YM Mathijssen NMC Hannink G Vehmeijer SBW

After implementation of a ‘fast-track’ rehabilitation protocol in our hospital, mean length of hospital stay for primary total hip arthroplasty decreased from 4.6 to 2.9 nights for unselected patients. However, despite this reduction there was still a wide range across the patients’ hospital duration. The purpose of this study was to identify which specific patient characteristics influence length of stay after successful implementation of a ‘fast-track’ rehabilitation protocol. A total of 477 patients (317 female and 160 male, mean age 71.0 years; 39.3 to 92.6, mean BMI 27.0 kg/m2;18.8 to 45.2) who underwent primary total hip arthroplasty between 1 February 2011 and 31 January 2013, were included in this retrospective cohort study. A length of stay greater than the median was considered as an increased duration. Logistic regression analyses were performed to identify potential factors associated with increased durations. Median length of stay was two nights (interquartile range 1), and the mean length of stay 2.9 nights (1 to 75). In all, 266 patients had a length of stay ≤ two nights. Age (odds ratio (OR) 2.46; 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.72 to 3.51; p <  0.001), living situation (alone vs living together with cohabitants, OR 2.09; 95% CI 1.33 to 3.30; p = 0.002) and approach (anterior approach vs lateral, OR 0.29; 95% CI 0.19 to 0.46; p <  0.001) (posterolateral approach vs lateral, OR 0.24; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.55; p < 0.001) were factors that were significantly associated with increased length of stay in the multivariable logistic regression model.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:19–23.