Cargando…

Survival and revision causes of hip resurfacing arthroplasty and the Mitch proximal epiphyseal replacement: results from the Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register

Background and purpose — The Mitch proximal epiphyseal replacement (PER) was developed to preserve proximal femoral bone and minimize femoral neck fracture associated with hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA). We studied the survival and risk of revision of HRA compared with cementless metal-on-polyet...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tang-Jensen, Maja, Kjærsgaard-Andersen, Per, Poulsen, Thomas K, Overgaard, Søren, Varnum, Claus
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Taylor & Francis 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6844433/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31340710
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2019.1646201
_version_ 1783468436706295808
author Tang-Jensen, Maja
Kjærsgaard-Andersen, Per
Poulsen, Thomas K
Overgaard, Søren
Varnum, Claus
author_facet Tang-Jensen, Maja
Kjærsgaard-Andersen, Per
Poulsen, Thomas K
Overgaard, Søren
Varnum, Claus
author_sort Tang-Jensen, Maja
collection PubMed
description Background and purpose — The Mitch proximal epiphyseal replacement (PER) was developed to preserve proximal femoral bone and minimize femoral neck fracture associated with hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA). We studied the survival and risk of revision of HRA compared with cementless metal-on-polyethylene (MoP) total hip arthroplasty (THA) and the survival and risk of revision of the Mitch PER compared with MoP THA. Patients and methods — Using propensity score, we matched 1,057 HRA to 1,057 MoP THA and 202 Mitch PER to 1,010 MoP THA from the Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register. To estimate the relative risk (RR) of revision, we used regression with the pseudo-value approach and treated death as a competing risk. Results — The cumulative incidence for any revision of HRA at 10 years’ follow-up was 11% (95% confidence interval [CI] 9.1–13) and 6.4% (CI 5.8–7.0) for MoP THA. The RR of any revision was 1.5 (CI 1.1–2.1) for HRA at 10 years’ follow-up. By excluding the ASR components, the RR of revision at 10 years was 1.2 (CI 0.8–1.7). The cumulative incidence of revision was 9.6% (CI 4.2–18) for Mitch PER and 5.4% (CI 5.1–5.7) for MoP THA at 8 years. The RR of revision was 2.0 (CI 0.9–4.3) for Mitch PER at 8 years’ follow-up. Interpretation — The HRA had increased risk of revision compared with the MoP THA. When excluding ASR, the HRA group had similar risk of revision compared with MoP THA. The Mitch PER did not have a statistically significant increased risk of revision compared with MoP THA.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6844433
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Taylor & Francis
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-68444332019-12-01 Survival and revision causes of hip resurfacing arthroplasty and the Mitch proximal epiphyseal replacement: results from the Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register Tang-Jensen, Maja Kjærsgaard-Andersen, Per Poulsen, Thomas K Overgaard, Søren Varnum, Claus Acta Orthop Article Background and purpose — The Mitch proximal epiphyseal replacement (PER) was developed to preserve proximal femoral bone and minimize femoral neck fracture associated with hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA). We studied the survival and risk of revision of HRA compared with cementless metal-on-polyethylene (MoP) total hip arthroplasty (THA) and the survival and risk of revision of the Mitch PER compared with MoP THA. Patients and methods — Using propensity score, we matched 1,057 HRA to 1,057 MoP THA and 202 Mitch PER to 1,010 MoP THA from the Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register. To estimate the relative risk (RR) of revision, we used regression with the pseudo-value approach and treated death as a competing risk. Results — The cumulative incidence for any revision of HRA at 10 years’ follow-up was 11% (95% confidence interval [CI] 9.1–13) and 6.4% (CI 5.8–7.0) for MoP THA. The RR of any revision was 1.5 (CI 1.1–2.1) for HRA at 10 years’ follow-up. By excluding the ASR components, the RR of revision at 10 years was 1.2 (CI 0.8–1.7). The cumulative incidence of revision was 9.6% (CI 4.2–18) for Mitch PER and 5.4% (CI 5.1–5.7) for MoP THA at 8 years. The RR of revision was 2.0 (CI 0.9–4.3) for Mitch PER at 8 years’ follow-up. Interpretation — The HRA had increased risk of revision compared with the MoP THA. When excluding ASR, the HRA group had similar risk of revision compared with MoP THA. The Mitch PER did not have a statistically significant increased risk of revision compared with MoP THA. Taylor & Francis 2019-12 2019-07-25 /pmc/articles/PMC6844433/ /pubmed/31340710 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2019.1646201 Text en © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Taylor & Francis on behalf of the Nordic Orthopedic Federation http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Article
Tang-Jensen, Maja
Kjærsgaard-Andersen, Per
Poulsen, Thomas K
Overgaard, Søren
Varnum, Claus
Survival and revision causes of hip resurfacing arthroplasty and the Mitch proximal epiphyseal replacement: results from the Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register
title Survival and revision causes of hip resurfacing arthroplasty and the Mitch proximal epiphyseal replacement: results from the Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register
title_full Survival and revision causes of hip resurfacing arthroplasty and the Mitch proximal epiphyseal replacement: results from the Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register
title_fullStr Survival and revision causes of hip resurfacing arthroplasty and the Mitch proximal epiphyseal replacement: results from the Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register
title_full_unstemmed Survival and revision causes of hip resurfacing arthroplasty and the Mitch proximal epiphyseal replacement: results from the Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register
title_short Survival and revision causes of hip resurfacing arthroplasty and the Mitch proximal epiphyseal replacement: results from the Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register
title_sort survival and revision causes of hip resurfacing arthroplasty and the mitch proximal epiphyseal replacement: results from the danish hip arthroplasty register
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6844433/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31340710
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2019.1646201
work_keys_str_mv AT tangjensenmaja survivalandrevisioncausesofhipresurfacingarthroplastyandthemitchproximalepiphysealreplacementresultsfromthedanishhiparthroplastyregister
AT kjærsgaardandersenper survivalandrevisioncausesofhipresurfacingarthroplastyandthemitchproximalepiphysealreplacementresultsfromthedanishhiparthroplastyregister
AT poulsenthomask survivalandrevisioncausesofhipresurfacingarthroplastyandthemitchproximalepiphysealreplacementresultsfromthedanishhiparthroplastyregister
AT overgaardsøren survivalandrevisioncausesofhipresurfacingarthroplastyandthemitchproximalepiphysealreplacementresultsfromthedanishhiparthroplastyregister
AT varnumclaus survivalandrevisioncausesofhipresurfacingarthroplastyandthemitchproximalepiphysealreplacementresultsfromthedanishhiparthroplastyregister