Prosthetic joint infections (PJI) are a devastating consequence in total hip arthroplasties (THA) with both significant morbidity and sometimes mortality, posing a significant health economic burden. Studies, both clinical and in-vitro have suggested possible reduction in PJI with the use of ceramic bearings.

We have investigated the relationship of ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC), ceramic-on-polyethylene (CoP) or metal-on-polyethylene (MoP) bearing surface in affecting outcome of revision surgery after primary THA using data collected from National Joint Registry for England and Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man between 2002 and 2016. We used a competing risk regression model to investigate predictors of each revision outcome, such as infection, dislocation, aseptic revision and all cause revisions. The results were adjusted for age, gender, ASA grade, BMI, indication for surgery, intraoperative complications and implant data.

We identified 456,457 THA (228,786 MoP, 128,403 CoC and 99,268 CoP). In a multivariable model, the adjusted risk of revision for PJI was lower with CoC (OR-0.748, p<0.001) and CoP (OR-0.775, p<0.001) when compared to MoP bearing. Additionally there was also a significant reduction in the risk of all cause revision for CoC (OR-0.918, p=0.002) and CoP (0.806, p<0.001), bearings as compared with MoP. The protective effect of ceramic bearing was predominantly seen after two years of implantation with a significant (p<0.0001) reduction of revision for PJI in both CoC (by 42.8%) and CoP (by 41.3%) group. Similarly significant effect was seen for aseptic revision beyond two years and overall all cause revision rate beyond two years reduced by 21.6% for CoC and 27.1% for CoP (p<0.001).

Within the limits of registry analysis, this study has demonstrated an association between the use of ceramic bearing and lower rates of revision for all cause revisions especially infection and aseptic loosening. This finding supports the use of ceramic bearings in THA.

The popularity of cementless total hip replacement (THR) has surpassed cemented THR in England and Wales. This retrospective cohort study records survival time to revision following primary cementless THR with the most common combination (accounting for almost a third of all cementless THRs), and explores risk factors independently associated with failure, using data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Patients with osteoarthritis who had a DePuy Corail/Pinnacle THR implanted between the establishment of the registry in 2003 and 31 December 2010 were included within analyses. There were 35 386 procedures. Cox proportional hazard models were used to analyse the extent to which the risk of revision was related to patient, surgeon and implant covariates. The overall rate of revision at five years was 2.4% (99% confidence interval 2.02 to 2.79). In the final adjusted model, we found that the risk of revision was significantly higher in patients receiving metal-on-metal (MoM: hazard ratio (HR) 1.93, p < 0.001) and ceramic-on-ceramic bearings (CoC: HR 1.55, p = 0.003) compared with the best performing bearing (metal-on-polyethylene). The risk of revision was also greater for smaller femoral stems (sizes 8 to 10: HR 1.82, p < 0.001) compared with mid-range sizes. In a secondary analysis of only patients where body mass index (BMI) data were available (n = 17 166), BMI ≥ 30 kg/m² significantly increased the risk of revision (HR 1.55, p = 0.002). The influence of the bearing on the risk of revision remained significant (MoM: HR 2.19, p < 0.001; CoC: HR 2.09, p = 0.001). The risk of revision was independent of age, gender, head size and offset, shell, liner and stem type, and surgeon characteristics.

We found significant differences in failure between bearing surfaces and femoral stem size after adjustment for a range of covariates in a large cohort of single-brand cementless THRs. In this study of procedures performed since 2003, hard bearings had significantly higher rates of revision, but we found no evidence that head size had an effect. Patient characteristics, such as BMI and American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, also influence the survival of cementless components.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:747–57.

Despite excellent results, the use of cemented total hip replacement (THR) is declining. This retrospective cohort study records survival time to revision following primary cemented THR using the most common combination of components that accounted for almost a quarter of all cemented THRs, exploring risk factors independently associated with failure. All patients with osteoarthritis who had an Exeter V40/Contemporary THR (Stryker) implanted before 31 December 2010 and recorded in the National Joint Registry for England and Wales were included in the analysis. Cox’s proportional hazard models were used to analyse the extent to which risk of revision was related to patient, surgeon and implant covariates, with a significance threshold of p < 0.01. A total of 34 721 THRs were included in the study. The overall seven-year rate of revision for any reason was 1.70% (99% confidence interval (CI) 1.28 to 2.12). In the final adjusted model the risk of revision was significantly higher in THRs with the Contemporary hooded component (hazard ratio (HR) 1.88, p < 0.001) than with the flanged version, and in smaller head sizes (< 28 mm) compared with 28 mm diameter heads (HR 1.50, p = 0.005). The seven-year revision rate was 1.16% (99% CI 0.69 to 1.63) with a 28 mm diameter head and flanged component. The overall risk of revision was independent of age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, body mass index, surgeon volume, surgical approach, brand of cement/presence of antibiotic, femoral head material (stainless steel/alumina) and stem taper size/offset. However, the risk of revision for dislocation was significantly higher with a ‘plus’ offset head (HR 2.05, p = 0.003) and a hooded acetabular component (HR 2.34, p < 0.001).

In summary, we found that there were significant differences in failure between different designs of acetabular component and sizes of femoral head after adjustment for a range of covariates.

Modern metal-on-metal hip resurfacing has been widely performed in the United Kingdom for over a decade. However, the literature reports conflicting views of the benefits: excellent medium- to long-term results with some brands in specific subgroups, but high failure rates and local soft-tissue reactions in others. The National Joint Registry for England and Wales (NJR) has collected data on all hip resurfacings performed since 2003. This retrospective cohort study recorded survival time to revision from a resurfacing procedure, exploring risk factors independently associated with failure. All patients with a primary diagnosis of osteoarthritis who underwent resurfacing between 2003 and 2010 were included in the analyses. Cox’s proportional hazard models were used to analyse the extent to which the risk of revision was related to patient, surgeon and implant covariates.

A total of 27 971 hip resurfacings were performed during the study period, of which 1003 (3.59%) underwent revision surgery. In the final adjusted model, we found that women were at greater risk of revision than men (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.30, p = 0.007), but the risk of revision was independent of age. Of the implant-specific predictors, five brands had a significantly greater risk of revision than the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) (ASR: HR = 2.82, p < 0.001, Conserve: HR = 2.03, p < 0.001, Cormet: HR = 1.43, p = 0.001, Durom: HR = 1.67, p < 0.001, Recap: HR = 1.58, p = 0.007). Smaller femoral head components were also significantly more likely to require revision (≤ 44 mm: HR = 2.14, p < 0.001, 45 to 47 mm: HR = 1.48, p = 0.001) than medium or large heads, as were operations performed by low-volume surgeons (HR = 1.36, p <  0.001). Once these influences had been removed, in 4873 male patients < 60 years old undergoing resurfacing with a BHR, the five-year estimated risk of revision was 1.59%.

In summary, after adjustment for a range of covariates we found that there were significant differences in the rate of failure between brands and component sizes. Younger male patients had good five-year implant survival when the BHR was used.