Aims

This study evaluates the association between consultant and hospital volume and the risk of re-revision and 90-day mortality following first-time revision of primary hip arthroplasty for aseptic loosening.

Aims

Several different designs of hemiarthroplasty are used to treat intracapsular fractures of the proximal femur, with large variations in costs. No clinical benefit of modular over monoblock designs has been reported in the literature. Long-term data are lacking. The aim of this study was to report the ten-year implant survival of commonly used designs of hemiarthroplasty.

Aims

Total hip arthroplasties (THAs) are performed by surgeons at various stages in training with varying levels of supervision, but we do not know if this is safe practice with comparable outcomes to consultant-performed THA. Our aim was to examine the association between surgeon grade, the senior supervision of trainees, and the risk of revision following 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.

Recent guidance recommends the use of a well-proven cemented femoral stem for hemiarthroplasty in the management of fractures of the femoral neck, and the Exeter Trauma Stem (ETS) has been suggested as an example of such an implant. The design of this stem was based on the well-proven Exeter Total Hip Replacement stem (ETHRS). This study assessed the surface finish of the ETS in comparison with the ETHRS. Two ETSs and two ETHRSs were examined using a profilometer with a precision of 1 nm and compared with an explanted Exeter Matt stem. The mean roughness average (RA) of the ETSs was approximately ten times higher than that of the ETHRSs (0.235 μm (0.095 to 0.452) versus 0.025 μm (0.011 to 0.059); p < 0.001). The historical Exeter Matt stem roughness measured a mean RA of 0.973 μm (0.658 to 1.159). The change of the polished Exeter stem to a matt surface finish in 1976 resulted in a high stem failure rate. We do not yet know whether the surface differences between ETS and ETHRS will be clinically significant. We propose the inclusion of hemiarthroplasty stems in national joint registries.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:173–6.

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.

Increased femoral head size may reduce dislocation rates following total hip replacement. The National Joint Registry for England and Wales has highlighted a statistically significant increase in the use of femoral heads ≥ 36 mm in diameter from 5% in 2005 to 26% in 2009, together with an increase in the use of the posterior approach. The aim of this study was to determine whether rates of dislocation have fallen over the same period. National data for England for 247 546 procedures were analysed in order to determine trends in the rate of dislocation at three, six, 12 and 18 months after operation during this time. The 18-month revision rates were also examined.

Between 2005 and 2009 there were significant decreases in cumulative dislocations at three months (1.12% to 0.86%), six months (1.25% to 0.96%) and 12 months (1.42% to 1.11%) (all p < 0.001), and at 18 months (1.56% to 1.31%) for the period 2005 to 2008 (p < 0.001). The 18-month revision rates did not significantly change during the study period (1.26% to 1.39%, odds ratio 1.10 (95% confidence interval 0.98 to 1.24), p = 0.118). There was no evidence of changes in the coding of dislocations during this time.

These data have revealed a significant reduction in dislocations associated with the use of large femoral head sizes, with no change in the 18-month revision rate.