Method of Fixation Does Not Influence the Overall Risk of Rerevision in First-time Cup Revisions
- 546 Downloads
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
- 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
- 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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
- 33.R Development Core Team. R: A Language and Enviroment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2010.Google Scholar