Uncemented or cemented stems in first-time revision total hip replacement? An observational study of 867 patients including assessment of femoral bone defect size

Background and purpose — Uncemented stems are gradually replacing cemented stems in hip revision surgery. We compared the risk of re-revision between uncemented and cemented revision stems and assessed whether the different fixation methods are used in similar femoral bone defects. Patients and meth...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Yosef Tyson, Christer Hillman, Norbert Majenburg, Olof Sköldenberg, Ola Rolfson, Johan Kärrholm, Maziar Mohaddes, Nils P Hailer
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Taylor & Francis Group 2021-03-01
Series:Acta Orthopaedica
Online Access:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2020.1846956
id doaj-2a2a202e11404baf8b75ca9f8270ce35
record_format Article
spelling doaj-2a2a202e11404baf8b75ca9f8270ce352021-06-02T08:05:32ZengTaylor & Francis GroupActa Orthopaedica1745-36741745-36822021-03-0192214315010.1080/17453674.2020.18469561846956Uncemented or cemented stems in first-time revision total hip replacement? An observational study of 867 patients including assessment of femoral bone defect sizeYosef Tyson0Christer Hillman1Norbert Majenburg2Olof Sköldenberg3Ola Rolfson4Johan Kärrholm5Maziar Mohaddes6Nils P Hailer7Section of Orthopaedics, Department of Surgical Sciences, Uppsala University HospitalDepartment of Orthopaedics, Danderyd University Hospital CorpSection of Orthopaedics, Department of Surgical Sciences, Uppsala University HospitalDepartment of Orthopaedics, Danderyd University Hospital CorpThe Swedish Hip Arthroplasty RegisterThe Swedish Hip Arthroplasty RegisterThe Swedish Hip Arthroplasty RegisterSection of Orthopaedics, Department of Surgical Sciences, Uppsala University HospitalBackground and purpose — Uncemented stems are gradually replacing cemented stems in hip revision surgery. We compared the risk of re-revision between uncemented and cemented revision stems and assessed whether the different fixation methods are used in similar femoral bone defects. Patients and methods — 867 patients operated on with uncemented or cemented stems in first-time hip revision surgery due to aseptic loosening performed 2006–2016 were identified in the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. Preoperative femoral bone defect size was assessed on radiographs of all patients. Cox regression models were fitted to estimate the adjusted risk of re-revision during different postoperative time periods. Re-revision of any component for any reason, and stem re-revision, as well as risk of cause-specific re-revision was estimated. Results — Most patients in both fixation groups had Paprosky class IIIA femoral bone defects prior to surgery, but there were more severe bone defects in the cemented group. The adjusted risk of re-revision of any component for any reason was higher in patients with uncemented compared with those with cemented revision stems during the first 3 years after index surgery (hazard ratio [HR] 4, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2–9). From the 4th year onward, the risk of re-revision of any component for any reason was similar (HR 0.5, CI 0.2–1.4). Uncemented revision stems conferred a higher risk of dislocation compared with cemented stems (HR 5, CI 1.2–23) during the first 3 years. Interpretation — Although not predominantly used in more complex femoral defects, uncemented revision stem fixation confers a slightly higher risk of re-revision during the first years, but this risk is attenuated after longer follow-up.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2020.1846956
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Yosef Tyson
Christer Hillman
Norbert Majenburg
Olof Sköldenberg
Ola Rolfson
Johan Kärrholm
Maziar Mohaddes
Nils P Hailer
spellingShingle Yosef Tyson
Christer Hillman
Norbert Majenburg
Olof Sköldenberg
Ola Rolfson
Johan Kärrholm
Maziar Mohaddes
Nils P Hailer
Uncemented or cemented stems in first-time revision total hip replacement? An observational study of 867 patients including assessment of femoral bone defect size
Acta Orthopaedica
author_facet Yosef Tyson
Christer Hillman
Norbert Majenburg
Olof Sköldenberg
Ola Rolfson
Johan Kärrholm
Maziar Mohaddes
Nils P Hailer
author_sort Yosef Tyson
title Uncemented or cemented stems in first-time revision total hip replacement? An observational study of 867 patients including assessment of femoral bone defect size
title_short Uncemented or cemented stems in first-time revision total hip replacement? An observational study of 867 patients including assessment of femoral bone defect size
title_full Uncemented or cemented stems in first-time revision total hip replacement? An observational study of 867 patients including assessment of femoral bone defect size
title_fullStr Uncemented or cemented stems in first-time revision total hip replacement? An observational study of 867 patients including assessment of femoral bone defect size
title_full_unstemmed Uncemented or cemented stems in first-time revision total hip replacement? An observational study of 867 patients including assessment of femoral bone defect size
title_sort uncemented or cemented stems in first-time revision total hip replacement? an observational study of 867 patients including assessment of femoral bone defect size
publisher Taylor & Francis Group
series Acta Orthopaedica
issn 1745-3674
1745-3682
publishDate 2021-03-01
description Background and purpose — Uncemented stems are gradually replacing cemented stems in hip revision surgery. We compared the risk of re-revision between uncemented and cemented revision stems and assessed whether the different fixation methods are used in similar femoral bone defects. Patients and methods — 867 patients operated on with uncemented or cemented stems in first-time hip revision surgery due to aseptic loosening performed 2006–2016 were identified in the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. Preoperative femoral bone defect size was assessed on radiographs of all patients. Cox regression models were fitted to estimate the adjusted risk of re-revision during different postoperative time periods. Re-revision of any component for any reason, and stem re-revision, as well as risk of cause-specific re-revision was estimated. Results — Most patients in both fixation groups had Paprosky class IIIA femoral bone defects prior to surgery, but there were more severe bone defects in the cemented group. The adjusted risk of re-revision of any component for any reason was higher in patients with uncemented compared with those with cemented revision stems during the first 3 years after index surgery (hazard ratio [HR] 4, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2–9). From the 4th year onward, the risk of re-revision of any component for any reason was similar (HR 0.5, CI 0.2–1.4). Uncemented revision stems conferred a higher risk of dislocation compared with cemented stems (HR 5, CI 1.2–23) during the first 3 years. Interpretation — Although not predominantly used in more complex femoral defects, uncemented revision stem fixation confers a slightly higher risk of re-revision during the first years, but this risk is attenuated after longer follow-up.
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2020.1846956
work_keys_str_mv AT yoseftyson uncementedorcementedstemsinfirsttimerevisiontotalhipreplacementanobservationalstudyof867patientsincludingassessmentoffemoralbonedefectsize
AT christerhillman uncementedorcementedstemsinfirsttimerevisiontotalhipreplacementanobservationalstudyof867patientsincludingassessmentoffemoralbonedefectsize
AT norbertmajenburg uncementedorcementedstemsinfirsttimerevisiontotalhipreplacementanobservationalstudyof867patientsincludingassessmentoffemoralbonedefectsize
AT olofskoldenberg uncementedorcementedstemsinfirsttimerevisiontotalhipreplacementanobservationalstudyof867patientsincludingassessmentoffemoralbonedefectsize
AT olarolfson uncementedorcementedstemsinfirsttimerevisiontotalhipreplacementanobservationalstudyof867patientsincludingassessmentoffemoralbonedefectsize
AT johankarrholm uncementedorcementedstemsinfirsttimerevisiontotalhipreplacementanobservationalstudyof867patientsincludingassessmentoffemoralbonedefectsize
AT maziarmohaddes uncementedorcementedstemsinfirsttimerevisiontotalhipreplacementanobservationalstudyof867patientsincludingassessmentoffemoralbonedefectsize
AT nilsphailer uncementedorcementedstemsinfirsttimerevisiontotalhipreplacementanobservationalstudyof867patientsincludingassessmentoffemoralbonedefectsize
_version_ 1721406677350088704