Cargando…

Heterotopic ossification following hip arthroplasty: a comparative radiographic study about its development with the use of three different kinds of implants

BACKGROUND: Our purpose was to record the incidence of heterotopic ossification (HO) following hip replacement by different variables to identify patient groups that are likely to develop HO in the absence of a prophylactic protocol. METHODS: Radiographically, we studied 651 patients having undergon...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Biz, Carlo, Pavan, Davide, Frizziero, Antonio, Baban, Ala, Iacobellis, Claudio
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4644335/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26567916
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-015-0317-2
_version_ 1782400659852623872
author Biz, Carlo
Pavan, Davide
Frizziero, Antonio
Baban, Ala
Iacobellis, Claudio
author_facet Biz, Carlo
Pavan, Davide
Frizziero, Antonio
Baban, Ala
Iacobellis, Claudio
author_sort Biz, Carlo
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Our purpose was to record the incidence of heterotopic ossification (HO) following hip replacement by different variables to identify patient groups that are likely to develop HO in the absence of a prophylactic protocol. METHODS: Radiographically, we studied 651 patients having undergone hip joint replacement, evaluating three kinds of implants: ceramic-ceramic-coupled total hip replacement (THR), TriboFit(®) with polycarbonate urethane-ceramic coupling and endoprosthesis. Each patient was analysed for HO development by age, gender, diagnosis, presence of previous ossifications, surgical approach and kind of implant. Within the population that developed HO, data were assessed for correlation with severity of ossification graded according to Brooker classification. RESULTS: The overall incidence of HOs was 59.91 %. The factors increasing their incidence in the univariate analysis were as follows: lower age of the patients with HO (mean 77.6 years, p = 0.0018) than those subjects who did not develop HO (mean 80.2 years); male gender (64.4 %, p = 0.1011); diagnosis of coxarthrosis (72.7 %, p = 0.0001) compared to femur neck fracture (55.9 %, p = 0.0001); presence of previous HO (76.2 %, p = 0.0260); lateral approach (65.5 %) as opposed to anterior-lateral approach (55.6 %, p = 0.0163); and ceramic-ceramic THR (68.1 %) and TriboFit(®) (67.0 %) compared to endoprosthesis (51.3 %, p = 0.0001). During multivariate analysis, the presence of HO after previous hip surgery (p = 0.0324) and the kind of implant (p = 0.0004) showed to be independent risk factors for the development of HO. Analysing the population that developed HO, we found that the severity of ossification by Brooker classification was influenced by gender (p = 0.0478) and kind of implant (p = 0.0093). CONCLUSIONS: In agreement with the literature, our radiographic study confirms the following risk factors of HO development in absence of any prophylactic treatment: male gender, diagnosis of coxarthrosis compared to femur neck fracture, previous HO, surgical approach and kind of implant. In particular, Hardinge-Bauer and Watson-Jones surgical approaches, characterized by a wide exposure of the coxofemoral joint, and ceramic-ceramic THR and TriboFit(®) implants significantly increase the development of HO.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4644335
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-46443352015-11-15 Heterotopic ossification following hip arthroplasty: a comparative radiographic study about its development with the use of three different kinds of implants Biz, Carlo Pavan, Davide Frizziero, Antonio Baban, Ala Iacobellis, Claudio J Orthop Surg Res Research Article BACKGROUND: Our purpose was to record the incidence of heterotopic ossification (HO) following hip replacement by different variables to identify patient groups that are likely to develop HO in the absence of a prophylactic protocol. METHODS: Radiographically, we studied 651 patients having undergone hip joint replacement, evaluating three kinds of implants: ceramic-ceramic-coupled total hip replacement (THR), TriboFit(®) with polycarbonate urethane-ceramic coupling and endoprosthesis. Each patient was analysed for HO development by age, gender, diagnosis, presence of previous ossifications, surgical approach and kind of implant. Within the population that developed HO, data were assessed for correlation with severity of ossification graded according to Brooker classification. RESULTS: The overall incidence of HOs was 59.91 %. The factors increasing their incidence in the univariate analysis were as follows: lower age of the patients with HO (mean 77.6 years, p = 0.0018) than those subjects who did not develop HO (mean 80.2 years); male gender (64.4 %, p = 0.1011); diagnosis of coxarthrosis (72.7 %, p = 0.0001) compared to femur neck fracture (55.9 %, p = 0.0001); presence of previous HO (76.2 %, p = 0.0260); lateral approach (65.5 %) as opposed to anterior-lateral approach (55.6 %, p = 0.0163); and ceramic-ceramic THR (68.1 %) and TriboFit(®) (67.0 %) compared to endoprosthesis (51.3 %, p = 0.0001). During multivariate analysis, the presence of HO after previous hip surgery (p = 0.0324) and the kind of implant (p = 0.0004) showed to be independent risk factors for the development of HO. Analysing the population that developed HO, we found that the severity of ossification by Brooker classification was influenced by gender (p = 0.0478) and kind of implant (p = 0.0093). CONCLUSIONS: In agreement with the literature, our radiographic study confirms the following risk factors of HO development in absence of any prophylactic treatment: male gender, diagnosis of coxarthrosis compared to femur neck fracture, previous HO, surgical approach and kind of implant. In particular, Hardinge-Bauer and Watson-Jones surgical approaches, characterized by a wide exposure of the coxofemoral joint, and ceramic-ceramic THR and TriboFit(®) implants significantly increase the development of HO. BioMed Central 2015-11-14 /pmc/articles/PMC4644335/ /pubmed/26567916 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-015-0317-2 Text en © Biz et al. 2015 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Biz, Carlo
Pavan, Davide
Frizziero, Antonio
Baban, Ala
Iacobellis, Claudio
Heterotopic ossification following hip arthroplasty: a comparative radiographic study about its development with the use of three different kinds of implants
title Heterotopic ossification following hip arthroplasty: a comparative radiographic study about its development with the use of three different kinds of implants
title_full Heterotopic ossification following hip arthroplasty: a comparative radiographic study about its development with the use of three different kinds of implants
title_fullStr Heterotopic ossification following hip arthroplasty: a comparative radiographic study about its development with the use of three different kinds of implants
title_full_unstemmed Heterotopic ossification following hip arthroplasty: a comparative radiographic study about its development with the use of three different kinds of implants
title_short Heterotopic ossification following hip arthroplasty: a comparative radiographic study about its development with the use of three different kinds of implants
title_sort heterotopic ossification following hip arthroplasty: a comparative radiographic study about its development with the use of three different kinds of implants
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4644335/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26567916
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-015-0317-2
work_keys_str_mv AT bizcarlo heterotopicossificationfollowinghiparthroplastyacomparativeradiographicstudyaboutitsdevelopmentwiththeuseofthreedifferentkindsofimplants
AT pavandavide heterotopicossificationfollowinghiparthroplastyacomparativeradiographicstudyaboutitsdevelopmentwiththeuseofthreedifferentkindsofimplants
AT frizzieroantonio heterotopicossificationfollowinghiparthroplastyacomparativeradiographicstudyaboutitsdevelopmentwiththeuseofthreedifferentkindsofimplants
AT babanala heterotopicossificationfollowinghiparthroplastyacomparativeradiographicstudyaboutitsdevelopmentwiththeuseofthreedifferentkindsofimplants
AT iacobellisclaudio heterotopicossificationfollowinghiparthroplastyacomparativeradiographicstudyaboutitsdevelopmentwiththeuseofthreedifferentkindsofimplants