Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

, Volume 471, Issue 12, pp 3922–3931 | Cite as

Method of Fixation Does Not Influence the Overall Risk of Rerevision in First-time Cup Revisions

  • Maziar Mohaddes
  • Göran Garellick
  • Johan Kärrholm
Symposium: 2012 International Hip Society Proceedings

Abstract

Background

During the last two decades, uncemented fixation has been increasingly preferred worldwide during cup revision surgery. In Sweden, the number of uncemented cup revisions has been increasing during the last decade. However, it is unclear whether the risk of rerevision differs between cemented and uncemented cups.

Question/purposes

We determined (1) the risk of rerevision after cemented and uncemented fixation; (2) the influence of concomitant stem revision on the risk of rerevision of the cup; (3) the difference in risk of rerevision of an uncemented cup revision compared with liner revision only; and (4) whether the surgical incision influenced the risk of rerevision.

Methods

Between 1979 and 2010, 19,342 first-time cup revisions were reported to the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. From these, 749 were excluded (hip resurfacing, cases with tumor diagnoses, and missing data) leaving 18,593 (73% cemented) for further analysis. We used a Cox regression model adjusted for age, sex, primary diagnosis, method of fixation, concomitant stem revision, and cemented/uncemented fixation to assess risk of rerevision.

Results

The relative risk for rerevision for any reason did not differ between cemented and uncemented fixation (relative risk [RR], 0.94). If the stem was not revised at index revision, the risk of further cup revision increased twofold (RR, 1.91). Liner revisions were associated with a 70% increased risk for rerevision of the cup as a result of any reason and especially because of dislocation (RR, 2.94). The surgical incision did not influence the overall risk for rerevision (direct lateral/posterolateral: RR, 1.02) or the risk of rerevision resulting from dislocation (RR, 0.91).

Conclusions

We found no difference in the overall risk of rerevision between cemented and uncemented fixation. Liner exchange had a higher risk for rerevision when compared with cases being rerevised with a new uncemented cup.

Level of Evidence

Level II, prognostic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank the Swedish Orthopaedic surgeons, the secretaries at the individual hospitals, and the local staff at the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register who, by reporting and compiling data for more than three decades, made this study possible.

References

  1. 1.
    Abeysekera W, Sooriyarachchi M. Use of Schoenfeld’s global test to test the proportional hazards assumption in the cox proportional hazards model: an application to a clinical study. J Natl Sci Found Sri Lanka. 2009;37:41–51.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beaulé PE, Ebramzadeh E, LeDuff M, Prasad R, Amstutz HC. Cementing a liner into a stable cementless acetabular shell: the double-socket technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86:929–934.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Biviji AA, Ezzet KA, Pulido P, Colwell CW. Modular femoral head and liner exchange for the unstable total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2009;24:625–630.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boucher HR, Lynch C, Young AM, Engh CA, Engh C. Dislocation after polyethylene liner exchange in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2003;18:654–657.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Carter AH, Sheehan EC, Mortazavi SMJ, Purtill JJ, Sharkey PF, Parvizi J. Revision for recurrent instability: what are the predictors of failure? J Arthroplasty. 2011;26:46–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Comba F, Buttaro M, Pusso R, Piccaluga F. Acetabular revision surgery with impacted bone allografts and cemented cups in patients younger than 55 years. Int Orthop. 2009;33:611–616.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dahl OE, Garvik LJ, Lyberg T. Toxic effects of methylmethacrylate monomer on leukocytes and endothelial cells in vitro. Acta Orthop. 1994;65:147–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Della Valle CJ, Shuaipaj T, Berger RA, Rosenberg AG, Shott S, Jacobs JJ, Galante JO. Revision of the acetabular component without cement after total hip arthroplasty: A concise follow-up, at fifteen to nineteen years, of a previous report. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:1795–1800.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Earll MD, Fehring TK, Griffin WL, Mason JB, McCoy T, Odum S. Success rate of modular component exchange for the treatment of an unstable total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2002;17:864–869.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Engelbrecht D, Weber F, Sweet M, Jakim I. Long-term results of revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1990;72:41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Eskelinen A, Remes V, Helenius I, Pulkkinen P, Nevalainen J, Paavolainen P. Uncemented total hip arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis in young patients: a mid-to long-term follow-up study from the Finnish Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop. 2006;77:57–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Etienne G, Bezwada HP, Hungerford DS, Mont MA. The incorporation of morselized bone grafts in cementless acetabular revisions. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;428:241.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fox J. Cox proportional-hazards regression for survival data. 2011. SAGE Publications, Inc. Available at: http://socserv.mcmaster.ca/jfox/books/companion/appendix/Appendix-Cox-Regression.pdf. Accessed October 7, 2012.
  14. 14.
    Garcia-Cimbrelo E, Cruz-Pardos A, Garcia-Rey E, Ortega-Chamarro J. The survival and fate of acetabular reconstruction with impaction grafting for large defects. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468:3304–3313.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Garcia-Cimbrelo E, Munuera L, Diez-Vazquez V. Long-term results of aseptic cemented Charnley revisions. J Arthroplasty. 1995;10:121–131.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Garellick G, Kärrholm J, Rogmark C, Herberts P. The Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register, Annual Report 2010. 2011. Department of Orthopaedics, Sahlgrenska University Hospital. Available at: http://www.shpr.se/Libraries/Documents/AnnualReport-2010-2-eng.sflb.ashx. Accessed October 1, 2012.
  17. 17.
    Gross AE. Restoration of acetabular bone loss 2005. J Arthroplasty. 2006;21:117–120.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hultmark P, Kärrholm J, Strömberg C, Herberts P. Cemented first-time revision using Charnley cups: clinical outcome after 7 to 15 years follow-up. J Arthroplasty. 2003;18:999–1004.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Katz RP, Callaghan JJ, Sullivan PM, Johnston RC. Long-term results of revision total hip arthroplasty with improved cementing technique. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1997;79:322–326.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kavanagh F, Ilstrup DM, Fitzgerald RH Jr. Revision total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1985;193:133–140.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89:780–785.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lachiewicz PF, Poon ED. Revision of a total hip arthroplasty with a Harris-Galante porous-coated acetabular component inserted without cement. A follow-up note on the results at five to twelve years. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1998;80:980–984.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lakstein D, Backstein D, Safir O, Kosashvili Y, Gross AE. Trabecular Metal™ Cups for acetabular defects with 50% or less host bone contact. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467:2318–2324.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lie S, Hallan G, Furnes O, Havelin L, Engesaeter L. Isolated acetabular liner exchange compared with complete acetabular component revision in revision of primary uncemented acetabular components. A study of 1649 revisions from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007;89:591–594.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lie SA, Havelin LI, Furnes ON, Engesæster LB, Vollset SE. Failure rates for 4762 revision total hip arthroplasties in the Norwegian arthroplasty register. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2004;86:504–509.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lindgren V, Garellick G, Kärrholm J, Wretenberg P. The type of surgical approach influences the risk of revision in total hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop. 2012;83:1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Marti RK, Schüller H, Besselaar PP, Vanfrank HEL. Results of revision of hip arthroplasty with cement. A five to fourteen-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1990;72:346.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mulroy R, Harris W. The effect of improved cementing techniques on component loosening in total hip replacement. An 11-year radiographic review. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1990;72:757–760.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Palm L, Jacobsson S-A, Kvist J, Lindholm A, Öjersjö A, Ivarsson I. Acetabular revision with extensive allograft impaction and uncemented hydroxyapatite-coated implants. Results after 9 (7–11) years follow-up. J Arthroplasty. 2007;22:1083–1091.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Park DK, Della Valle CJ, Quigley L, Moric M, Rosenberg AG, Galante JO. Revision of the acetabular component without cement. A concise follow-up, at twenty to twenty-four years, of a previous report. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91:350–355.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pellicci PM, Wilson PD, Sledge C, Salvati E, Ranawat C, Poss R, Callaghan J. Long-term results of revision total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1985;67:513.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Pulido L, Rachala S, Cabanela M. Cementless acetabular revision: past, present, and future. Int Orthop. 2011;35:289–298.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    R Development Core Team. R: A Language and Enviroment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2010.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Schreurs B, Keurentjes J, Gardeniers J, Verdonschot N, Slooff T, Veth R. Acetabular revision with impacted morsellised cancellous bone grafting and a cemented acetabular component: a 20-to 25-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009;91:1148.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Söderman P, Malchau H, Herberts P, Zügner R, Regnér H, Garellick G. Outcome after total hip arthroplasty: Part II. Disease-specific follow-up and the Swedish National Total Hip Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop. 2001;72:113–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Strömberg CN, Herberts P. A multicenter 10-year study of cemented revision total hip arthroplasty in patients younger than 55 years old: a follow-up report. J Arthroplasty. 1994;9:595–601.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Strömberg CN, Herberts P. Cemented revision total hip arthroplasties in patients younger than 55 years old: a multicenter evaluation of second-generation cementing technique. J Arthroplasty. 1996;11:489–499.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Thanner J, Kärrholm J, Malchau H, Herberts P. Poor outcome of the PCA and Harris-Galante hip prostheses: randomized study of 171 arthroplasties with 9-year follow-up. Acta Orthop. 1999;70:155–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Van Haaren E, Heyligers I, Alexander F, Wuisman P. High rate of failure of impaction grafting in large acetabular defects. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007;89:296.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons® 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maziar Mohaddes
    • 1
  • Göran Garellick
    • 1
    • 2
  • Johan Kärrholm
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of OrthopaedicsInstitute of Clinical Sciences, The Sahlgrenska Academy, University of GothenburgGothenburgSweden
  2. 2.Swedish Hip Arthroplasty RegisterGothenburgSweden

Personalised recommendations