The incidence of implant fractures after total hip arthroplasty
- 459 Downloads
Implant fractures after total hip arthroplasty (THA) are considered as rare in clinical practice. Nevertheless they are relevant complications for patients, physicians, and the public health system leading to high socioeconomic burdens. The aim of this study was to assess the incidence of fractures after THAs in a comparative analysis of clinical studies and worldwide arthroplasty register datasets.
We calculated the pooled incidence of revision operations after fractures of THAs in a comparison of clinical studies published in Medline-listed journals and annual reports of worldwide arthroplasty registers in a structured literature analysis based on a standardised methodology.
Included clinical studies (sample-based datasets) were mono-centre trials comprising a cumulative number of approximately 70,000 primary implantations whereas worldwide national arthroplasty register datasets referred to 733,000 primary implantations, i.e. approximately ten times as many as sample-based datasets. In general, sample-based datasets presented higher revision rates than register datasets with a maximum deviation of a 14.5 ratio for ceramic heads, respectively. The incidence of implant fractures in total hip arthroplasty in pooled worldwide arthroplasty register datasets is 304 fractures per 100,000 implants. In other words, one out of 323 patients has to undergo revision surgery due to an implant fracture after THA in their lifetime.
Implant fractures in total hip arthroplasty occur in a relevant number of patients. The authors believe that comprehensive arthroplasty register datasets allow more general evaluations and conclusions on that topic in contrast to clinical studies.
KeywordsTotal hip arthroplasty Fracture Incidence Register dataset
This study was conducted in the course of an EU project and supported by a grant from the EU Commission’s Directorate General for Public Health and Consumer Protection (DG SANCO). No further financial support has been received from other stakeholders such as the industry. Apart from the general framework of the project task, the support on the part of a public health institution had no influence whatsoever on the results.
- 4.Labek G. on behalf of the QoLA Study Group. Quality of publications regarding the outcome of revision rate after arthroplasty – interim report of the QoLA Project presented at the EFORT Congress 2010 in Madrid. http://www.ear.efort.org/. Accessed 25 August 2013
- 12.Pedersen AB, Johnsen SP, Overgaard S, Soballe K, Sorensen HT, Lucht U (2004) Registration in the Danish Hip Arthroplasty Registry: completeness of total hip arthroplasties and positive predictive value of registered diagnosis and postoperative complications. Acta Orthop Scand 75(4):434–441PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.Arthursson AJ, Furnes O, Espehaug B, Havelin LI, Soreide JA (2005) Validation of data in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register and the Norwegian Patient Register: 5,134 primary total hip arthroplasties and revisions operated at a single hospital between 1987 and 2003. Acta Orthop 76(6):823–828PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Sodermann P, Malchau H, Herberts P, Johnell O (2000) Are the findings in the Swedish National Total Hip Arthroplasty Register valid? A comparison between the Swedish National Total Hip Arthroplasty Register, the National Discharge Register, and the National Death Register. J Arthroplasty 15(7):884–889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Robertsson O, Ranstam JP (2003) No bias of ignored bilaterality when analysing the revision risk of knee prostheses: analysis of a population based sample of 44,590 patients with 55,298 knee prostheses from the national Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 4:1PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 27.Wrobleski BM, Siney PD, Fleming PA (1998) Wear and fracture of the acetabular cup in Charnley low-friction arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 13(2):1323–1327Google Scholar
- 30.Jaffe WL, Hawkins CA (1999) Normalized and proportionalized cemented femoral stem survivorship at 15 years. Clin Orthop Relat Res 14:708Google Scholar
- 31.Pellicci PM, Salvati EA, Robinson HJ (1997) Mechanical failures in total hip replacement requiring reoperation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 61:28–36Google Scholar
- 35.Dall DM, Learmonth ID, Solomon MI, Miles AW, Davenport JM (1993) Fracture and loosening of Charnley femoral stems. J Bone Joint Surg Br 75-B:259–265Google Scholar
- 42.Wrobleski BM (1982) Fractured stem in total hip replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 53:279–284Google Scholar
- 43.Callaway GH, Flynn W, Ranawat CS, Sculco TP (1995) Fracture of the femoral head after ceramic on polyethylene total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 10(6):855–859Google Scholar
- 44.Annual Report 2006, Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register, http://www.jru.orthop.gu.se/. Accessed 25 August 2013
- 45.8-year Report, New Zealand Orthopaedic Association – National Joint Registry, http://www.cdhb.govt.nz/NJR/. Accessed 25 August 2013
- 46.Annual Report 2007, Australian Orthopaedic Association – National Joint Registry, http://www.dmac.adelaide.edu.au/aoanjrr/index.jsp. Accessed 25 August 2013
- 47.Annual Report 2006, Danish Hip Arthroplasty Registry, http://www.dhr.dk/ENGLISH.htm. Accessed 25 August 2013
- 48.The 2006 Implant Yearbook on Orthopaedic Endoprosthesis, Finnish Arthroplasty Register, http://www.nam.fi/english/publications/. Accessed 25 August 2013
- 49.4th Annual Report, National Joint Registry for England and Wales,http://www-new.njrcentre.org.uk/njrcentre/Default.aspx. Accessed 25 August 2013
- 50.Annual Report 2007, Canadian Joint Replacement Registry (CJRR)http://secure.cihi.ca/cihiweb/dispPage.jsp?cw_page=services_cjrr_e. Accessed 25 August 2013
- 51.Doll R, Hill AB (1956) Lung cancer and other causes of death in relation to smoking. BMJ 1072:5071–5081Google Scholar
- 52.American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons (AAHKS), http://www.aahks.org/. Accessed 25 August 2013
- 53.Sadoghi P, Schröder C, Fottner A, Steinbrück A, Betz O, Müller PE, Jansson V, Hölzer A (2012) Application and survival curve of total hip arthroplasties: a systematic comparative analysis using worldwide hip arthroplasty registers. Int Orthop 36(11):2197–2203PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar