We aimed to determine whether cemented hemiarthroplasty
is associated with a higher post-operative mortality and rate of
re-operation when compared with uncemented hemiarthroplasty. Data
on 19 669 patients, who were treated with a hemiarthroplasty following
a fracture of the hip in a nine-year period from 2002 to 2011, were extracted
from NHS Scotland’s acute admission database (Scottish Morbidity
Record, SMR01). We investigated the rate of mortality at day 0,
1, 7, 30, 120 and one-year post-operatively using 12 case-mix variables
to determine the independent effect of the method of fixation. At
day 0, those with a cemented hemiarthroplasty had a higher rate
of mortality (p <
0.001) compared with those with an uncemented
hemiarthroplasty, equivalent to one extra death per 424 procedures.
By day one this had become one extra death per 338 procedures. Increasing
age and the five-year co-morbidity score were noted as independent
risk factors. By day seven, the cumulative rate of mortality was
less for cemented hemiarthroplasty though this did not reach significance
until day 120. The rate of re-operation was significantly higher
for uncemented hemiarthroplasty. Despite adjusting for 12 confounding
variables, these only accounted for 15% of the observed variability. The debate about the choice of the method of fixation for a hemiarthroplasty
with respect to the rate of mortality or the risk of re-operation
may be largely superfluous. Our results suggest that uncemented
hemiarthroplasties may have a role to play in elderly patients with
significant co-morbid disease. Cite this article:
We present the early clinical and radiological results of Articular Surface Replacement (ASR) resurfacings in 214 hips (192 patients) with a mean follow-up of 43 months (30 to 57). The mean age of the patients was 56 years (28 to 74) and 85 hips (40%) were in 78 women. The mean Harris hip score improved from 52 (11 to 81) to 95 (27 to 100) at two years and the mean University of California, Los Angeles activity score from 3.9 (1 to 10) to 7.4 (2 to 10) in the same period. Narrowing of the neck (to a maximum of 9%) was noted in 124 of 209 hips (60%). There were 12 revisions (5.6%) involving four (1.9%) early fractures of the femoral neck and two (0.9%) episodes of collapse of the femoral head secondary to avascular necrosis. Six patients (2.8%) had failure related to metal wear debris. The overall survival for our series was 93% (95% confidence interval 80 to 98) and 89% (95% confidence interval 82 to 96) for hips with acetabular components smaller than 56 mm in diameter. The ASR implant has a lower diametrical clearance and a subhemispherical acetabular component when compared with other more frequently implanted metal-on-metal hip resurfacings. These changes may contribute to the higher failure rate than in other series, compared with other designs. Given our poor results with the small components we are no longer implanting the smaller size.
Survival analysis is an important tool for assessing the outcome of total joint replacement. The Kaplan-Meier method is used to estimate the incidence of revision of a prosthesis over time, but does not account appropriately for competing events which preclude revision. In the presence of competing death, this method will lead to statistical bias and the curve will lose its interpretability. A valid comparison of survival results between studies using the method is impossible without accounting for different rates of competing events. An alternative and easily applicable approach, the cumulative incidence of competing risk, is proposed. Using three simulated data sets and realistic data from a cohort of 406 consecutive cementless total hip prostheses, followed up for a minimum of ten years, both approaches were compared and the magnitude of potential bias was highlighted. The Kaplan-Meier method overestimated the incidence of revision by almost 4% (60% relative difference) in the simulations and more than 1% (31.3% relative difference) in the realistic data set. The cumulative incidence of competing risk approach allows for appropriate accounting of competing risk and, as such, offers an improved ability to compare survival results across studies.
