The reported prevalence of an asymptomatic slip
of the contralateral hip in patients operated on for unilateral slipped
capital femoral epiphysis (SCFE) is as high as 40%. Based on a population-based
cohort of 2072 healthy adolescents (58% women) we report on radiological
and clinical findings suggestive of a possible previous SCFE. Common
threshold values for Southwick’s lateral head–shaft angle (≥ 13°)
and Murray’s tilt index (≥ 1.35) were used. New reference intervals
for these measurements at skeletal maturity are also presented. At follow-up the mean age of the patients was 18.6 years (17.2
to 20.1). All answered two questionnaires, had a clinical examination
and two hip radiographs. There was an association between a high head–shaft angle and
clinical findings associated with SCFE, such as reduced internal
rotation and increased external rotation. Also, 6.6% of the cohort
had Southwick’s lateral head–shaft angle ≥ 13°, suggestive of a
possible slip. Murray’s tilt index ≥ 1.35 was demonstrated in 13.1%
of the cohort, predominantly in men, in whom this finding was associated
with other radiological findings such as pistol-grip deformity or
focal prominence of the femoral neck, but no clinical findings suggestive
of SCFE. This study indicates that 6.6% of young adults have radiological
findings consistent with a prior SCFE, which seems to be more common
than previously reported. Cite this article:
Primary uncemented femoral stems reported to the Norwegian arthroplasty register between 1987 and 2005 were included in this prospective observational study. There were 11 516 hips (9679 patients) and 14 different designs of stem. Kaplan-Meier survival probabilities and Cox regression were used to analyse the data. With aseptic loosening as the end-point, all currently used designs performed excellently with survival of 96% to 100% at ten years. With the end-point as stem revision for any cause, the long-term results of the different designs varied from poor to excellent, with survival at 15 years ranging between 29% and 97%. Follow-up for longer than seven years was needed to identify some of the poorly-performing designs. There were differences between the stems; the Corail, used in 5456 hips, was the most frequently used stem with a survival of 97% at 15 years. Male gender was associated with an increased risk of revision of × 1.3 (95% confidence interval 1.05 to 1.52), but age and diagnosis had no influence on the results. Overall, modern uncemented femoral stems performed well. Moderate differences in survival between well-performing stems should be interpreted with caution since the differences may be caused by factors other than the stem itself.
We analysed the results of different strategies in the revision of primary uncemented acetabular components reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. The aim was to compare the risk of further acetabular revision after isolated liner exchange and complete component revision. The results of exchanging well-fixed components were also compared with those of exchanging loose acetabular components. The period studied was between September 1987 and April 2005. The following groups were compared: group 1, exchange of liner only in 318 hips; group 2, exchange of well-fixed components in 398; and group 3, exchange of loose components in 933. We found that the risk of a further cup revision was lower after revision of well-fixed components (relative risk from a Cox model (RR) = 0.56, 95% confidence interval 0.37% to 0.87%) and loose components (RR = 0.56, 95% confidence interval 0.39% to 0.80%), compared with exchange of the liner in isolation. The most frequent reason for a further acetabular revision was dislocation, accounting for 61 (28%) of the re-revisions. Other reasons for further revision included pain in 27 (12%), loosening in 24 (11%) and infection in 20 (9%). Re-revisions because of pain were less frequent when complete component (fixed or loose) revision was undertaken compared with isolated exchange of the liner (RR = 0.20 (95% confidence interval 0.06% to 0.65%) and RR = 0.10 (95% confidence interval 0.03% to 0.30%), respectively). The risk of further acetabular revision for infection, however, did not differ between the groups. In this study, exchange of the liner only had a higher risk of further cup revision than revision of the complete acetabular component. Our results suggest that the threshold for revising well-fixed components in the case of liner wear and osteolysis should be lowered.
We present the results for 4762 revision total hip arthroplasties with no previous infection in the hip, which were reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register between 1987 and 2003. The ten-year failure rate for revised prostheses was 26% (95% CI 25 to 26). Cox regression analyses were undertaken separately for acetabular and femoral revision components. Cemented revision components without allograft was the reference category. For acetabular components, we found a significantly reduced risk of failure for uncemented revisions both with (relative risk (RR) = 0.66; 95% CI 0.43 to 0.99) and without (RR = 0.37; 95% CI 0.22 to 0.61) allograft. For femoral components, we found a significantly reduced risk of failure for uncemented revisions, both with (RR = 0.27; 95% CI 0.16 to 0.46) and without (RR = 0.22; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.46) unimpacted allograft. This reduced risk of failure also applied to cemented revision components with allograft (RR = 0.53; 95% CI 0.33 to 0.84) and with impaction bone grafting (RR = 0.34; 95% CI 0.19 to 0.62). Revision prostheses have generally inferior results when compared with primary prostheses. Recementation without allograft, and uncemented revision with bone impaction, were associated with worse results than the other revision techniques which we studied.
We studied the rates of revision for 53 698 primary total hip replacements (THRs) in nine different groups of disease. Factors which have previously been shown to be associated with increased risk of revision, such as male gender, young age, or certain types of uncemented prosthesis, showed important differences between the diagnostic groups. Without adjustment for these factors we observed an increased risk of revision in patients with paediatric hip diseases and in a small heterogeneous ‘other’ group, compared with patients with primary osteoarthritis. Most differences were reduced or disappeared when an adjustment for the prognostic factors was made. After adjustment, an increased relative risk (RR) of revision compared with primary osteoarthritis was seen in hips with complications after fracture of the femoral neck (RR = 1.3, p = 0.0005), in hips with congenital dislocation (RR = 1.3, p = 0.03), and in the heterogenous ‘other’ group. The analyses were also undertaken in a more homogenous subgroup of 16 217 patients which had a Charnley prosthesis implanted with high-viscosity cement. The only difference in this group was an increased risk for revision in patients who had undergone THR for complications after fracture of the femoral neck (RR = 1.5, p = 0.0005). THR for diagnoses seen mainly among young patients had a good prognosis, but they had more often received inferior uncemented implants. If a cemented Charnley prosthesis is used, the type of disease leading to THR seems in most cases to have only a minor influence on the survival of the prosthesis.
