Cargando…
Higher risk of 2-year cup revision of ceramic-on-ceramic versus ceramic-on-polyethylene bearing: analysis of 33,454 primary press-fit total hip arthroplasties registered in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI)
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The influence of bearing on short-term revision in press-fit total hip arthroplasty (THA) remains under-reported. The aim of this study was to describe 2-year cup revision rates of ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC) and ceramic-on-polyethylene (CoPE). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Primary pres...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
SAGE Publications
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9978866/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34974763 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/11207000211064975 |
_version_ | 1784899613479665664 |
---|---|
author | van Loon, Justin Sierevelt, Inger N Spekenbrink-Spooren, Anneke Opdam, Kim TM Poolman, Rudolf W Kerkhoffs, Gino MMJ Haverkamp, Daniël |
author_facet | van Loon, Justin Sierevelt, Inger N Spekenbrink-Spooren, Anneke Opdam, Kim TM Poolman, Rudolf W Kerkhoffs, Gino MMJ Haverkamp, Daniël |
author_sort | van Loon, Justin |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The influence of bearing on short-term revision in press-fit total hip arthroplasty (THA) remains under-reported. The aim of this study was to describe 2-year cup revision rates of ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC) and ceramic-on-polyethylene (CoPE). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Primary press-fit THAs with one of the three most used cups available with both CoC or CoPE bearing recorded in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI) were included (2007–2019). Primary outcome was 2-year cup revision for all reasons. Secondary outcomes were: reasons for revision, incidence of different revision procedures and use of both bearings over time. RESULTS: 2-year Kaplan-Meier cup revision rate in 33,454 THAs (12,535 CoC; 20,919 CoPE) showed a higher rate in CoC (0.67% [95% CI, 0.54–0.81]) compared to CoPE (0.44% [95% CI, 0.34–0.54]) (p = 0.004). Correction for confounders (age, gender, cup type, head size) resulted in a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.64 [95%CI, 0.48–0.87] (p = 0.019). Reasons for cup revision differed only by more cup revision due to loosening in CoC (26.2% vs.1 3.2%) (p = 0.030). For aseptic loosening a revision rate of 0.153% [95% CI, 0.075–0.231] was seen in CoC and 0.058% [95%CI 0.019–0.097] in CoPE (p = 0.007). Correction for head size resulted in a HR of 0.475 [95% CI, 0.197–1.141] (p = 0.096). Incidence of different revision procedures did not differ between bearings. Over time the use of CoPE has increased and CoC decreased. CONCLUSIONS: A higher 2-year cup revision rate in press-fit THA was observed in CoC compared to CoPE. Cup loosening was the only significantly different reason for revision and seen more often in CoC and mostly aseptic. Future randomised controlled trials need to confirm causality, since the early cup revision data provided has the potential to be useful when choosing the bearing in press-fit THA, when combined with other factors like bone quality and patient and implant characteristics. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9978866 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | SAGE Publications |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-99788662023-03-03 Higher risk of 2-year cup revision of ceramic-on-ceramic versus ceramic-on-polyethylene bearing: analysis of 33,454 primary press-fit total hip arthroplasties registered in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI) van Loon, Justin Sierevelt, Inger N Spekenbrink-Spooren, Anneke Opdam, Kim TM Poolman, Rudolf W Kerkhoffs, Gino MMJ Haverkamp, Daniël Hip Int Original Research Articles BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The influence of bearing on short-term revision in press-fit total hip arthroplasty (THA) remains under-reported. The aim of this study was to describe 2-year cup revision rates of ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC) and ceramic-on-polyethylene (CoPE). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Primary press-fit THAs with one of the three most used cups available with both CoC or CoPE bearing recorded in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI) were included (2007–2019). Primary outcome was 2-year cup revision for all reasons. Secondary outcomes were: reasons for revision, incidence of different revision procedures and use of both bearings over time. RESULTS: 2-year Kaplan-Meier cup revision rate in 33,454 THAs (12,535 CoC; 20,919 CoPE) showed a higher rate in CoC (0.67% [95% CI, 0.54–0.81]) compared to CoPE (0.44% [95% CI, 0.34–0.54]) (p = 0.004). Correction for confounders (age, gender, cup type, head size) resulted in a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.64 [95%CI, 0.48–0.87] (p = 0.019). Reasons for cup revision differed only by more cup revision due to loosening in CoC (26.2% vs.1 3.2%) (p = 0.030). For aseptic loosening a revision rate of 0.153% [95% CI, 0.075–0.231] was seen in CoC and 0.058% [95%CI 0.019–0.097] in CoPE (p = 0.007). Correction for head size resulted in a HR of 0.475 [95% CI, 0.197–1.141] (p = 0.096). Incidence of different revision procedures did not differ between bearings. Over time the use of CoPE has increased and CoC decreased. CONCLUSIONS: A higher 2-year cup revision rate in press-fit THA was observed in CoC compared to CoPE. Cup loosening was the only significantly different reason for revision and seen more often in CoC and mostly aseptic. Future randomised controlled trials need to confirm causality, since the early cup revision data provided has the potential to be useful when choosing the bearing in press-fit THA, when combined with other factors like bone quality and patient and implant characteristics. SAGE Publications 2022-01-02 2023-03 /pmc/articles/PMC9978866/ /pubmed/34974763 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/11207000211064975 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage). |
spellingShingle | Original Research Articles van Loon, Justin Sierevelt, Inger N Spekenbrink-Spooren, Anneke Opdam, Kim TM Poolman, Rudolf W Kerkhoffs, Gino MMJ Haverkamp, Daniël Higher risk of 2-year cup revision of ceramic-on-ceramic versus ceramic-on-polyethylene bearing: analysis of 33,454 primary press-fit total hip arthroplasties registered in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI) |
title | Higher risk of 2-year cup revision of ceramic-on-ceramic versus
ceramic-on-polyethylene bearing: analysis of 33,454 primary press-fit total hip
arthroplasties registered in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register
(LROI) |
title_full | Higher risk of 2-year cup revision of ceramic-on-ceramic versus
ceramic-on-polyethylene bearing: analysis of 33,454 primary press-fit total hip
arthroplasties registered in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register
(LROI) |
title_fullStr | Higher risk of 2-year cup revision of ceramic-on-ceramic versus
ceramic-on-polyethylene bearing: analysis of 33,454 primary press-fit total hip
arthroplasties registered in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register
(LROI) |
title_full_unstemmed | Higher risk of 2-year cup revision of ceramic-on-ceramic versus
ceramic-on-polyethylene bearing: analysis of 33,454 primary press-fit total hip
arthroplasties registered in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register
(LROI) |
title_short | Higher risk of 2-year cup revision of ceramic-on-ceramic versus
ceramic-on-polyethylene bearing: analysis of 33,454 primary press-fit total hip
arthroplasties registered in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register
(LROI) |
title_sort | higher risk of 2-year cup revision of ceramic-on-ceramic versus
ceramic-on-polyethylene bearing: analysis of 33,454 primary press-fit total hip
arthroplasties registered in the dutch arthroplasty register
(lroi) |
topic | Original Research Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9978866/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34974763 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/11207000211064975 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT vanloonjustin higherriskof2yearcuprevisionofceramiconceramicversusceramiconpolyethylenebearinganalysisof33454primarypressfittotalhiparthroplastiesregisteredinthedutcharthroplastyregisterlroi AT siereveltingern higherriskof2yearcuprevisionofceramiconceramicversusceramiconpolyethylenebearinganalysisof33454primarypressfittotalhiparthroplastiesregisteredinthedutcharthroplastyregisterlroi AT spekenbrinkspoorenanneke higherriskof2yearcuprevisionofceramiconceramicversusceramiconpolyethylenebearinganalysisof33454primarypressfittotalhiparthroplastiesregisteredinthedutcharthroplastyregisterlroi AT opdamkimtm higherriskof2yearcuprevisionofceramiconceramicversusceramiconpolyethylenebearinganalysisof33454primarypressfittotalhiparthroplastiesregisteredinthedutcharthroplastyregisterlroi AT poolmanrudolfw higherriskof2yearcuprevisionofceramiconceramicversusceramiconpolyethylenebearinganalysisof33454primarypressfittotalhiparthroplastiesregisteredinthedutcharthroplastyregisterlroi AT kerkhoffsginommj higherriskof2yearcuprevisionofceramiconceramicversusceramiconpolyethylenebearinganalysisof33454primarypressfittotalhiparthroplastiesregisteredinthedutcharthroplastyregisterlroi AT haverkampdaniel higherriskof2yearcuprevisionofceramiconceramicversusceramiconpolyethylenebearinganalysisof33454primarypressfittotalhiparthroplastiesregisteredinthedutcharthroplastyregisterlroi |