Advertisement

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

, Volume 475, Issue 8, pp 2046–2059 | Cite as

Exchangeable Femoral Neck (Dual-Modular) THA Prostheses Have Poorer Survivorship Than Other Designs: A Nationwide Cohort of 324,108 Patients

  • Sandrine ColasEmail author
  • Assia Allalou
  • Antoine Poichotte
  • Philippe Piriou
  • Rosemary Dray-Spira
  • Mahmoud Zureik
Open Access
Clinical Research

Abstract

Background

Exchangeable neck stems, defined as those with a dual taper (that is, a modular junction between the femoral head and the femoral neck and an additional junction between the neck and the stem body), were introduced in THA to improve restoration of joint biomechanics (restoring anteversion, offset, and limb length) and reduce the risk of dislocation. However exchangeable necks have been reported to result in adverse effects such as stem fractures and acute local tissue reaction. Whether they result in a net improvement to or impairment of reconstructive survivorship remains controversial.

Questions/Purposes

(1) To compare the prosthetic survivorship and all-cause revision risk of exchangeable femoral neck THAs versus fixed neck THAs, taking known prosthetic revision risk factors into account; and (2) to compare the cause-specific revision risk of exchangeable femoral neck THAs versus fixed neck THAs, adjusting for known prosthetic risk factors.

Methods

Using French national health-insurance databases, we identified all French patients older than 40 years who underwent primary THA from 2009 through 2012. To ensure accuracy of the data, we considered only beneficiaries of the general insurance scheme (approximately 77% of the population). Characteristics of the prosthesis and the patients receiving an exchangeable femoral neck THA were compared with those receiving a fixed femoral neck THA (defined as femoral stem with only the head being exchangeable). Revision was the event of interest. Followup started on the date the THA was performed, until the patient experienced revision, died, was lost to followup, or until the followup period ended (December 31, 2014), whichever came first. Competing risk THA survivorship was calculated and compared (purpose 1), as were cause-specific Cox regression models (purpose 2). The study cohort included 324,108 individuals with a mean age of 77 years. A total of 24% underwent THA for acute trauma, and 3% of the group received an exchangeable neck THA. During the median 45-month followup (mean, 42 months; minimum, 1 day; maximum, 6 years), 11,968 individuals underwent prosthetic revision.

Results

The cumulative revision incidence was 6.5% (95% CI, 5.8%–7.3%) for exchangeable neck THAs versus 4.7% (95% CI, 4.6%–4.8%) for fixed neck THAs (p < 0.001). After controlling for potential confounding variables including age, sex, comorbidities, indication for THA, cementation, bearing surface, and the characteristics of the center where the implantation was performed, we found that the exchangeable femoral neck THA was associated with an increased hazard ratio (HR) of revision of 1.26 (95% CI, 1.14–1.38; p < 0.001) compared with the fixed neck THA. When dealing with cause-specific revision, exchangeable neck THAs had a higher incidence of revision for implant failure or periprosthetic fracture, and for mechanical complications; adjusted HRs were, respectively, 1.68 (95% CI, 1.24–2.27; p < 0.001) and 1.27 (95% CI, 1.13–1.43; p < 0.001), for exchangeable neck THAs compared with fixed ones.

Conclusions

Exchangeable neck THAs had poorer survivorship independent of other prosthetic revision risk factors. Accordingly, expected anatomic and functional benefits should be carefully assessed before choosing this design.

Level of Evidence

Level III, therapeutic study.

Keywords

Revision Rate Periprosthetic Fracture Mechanical Complication Australian Registry Adverse Local Tissue Reaction 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Introduction

Adjusting limb length, femoral offset, and implant positioning are all important to achieve a successful outcome of THA. Available techniques and technical options in the field of hip arthroplasty have been evolving for several decades; in the 1980s, exchangeability of the femoral neck was introduced to help surgeons in customizing the THA fit and matching the anatomic characteristics of the patient with better accuracy to improve ROM, stability, and abductor strength [23, 26, 42, 44]. Exchangeable neck stems—defined as those with modular junctions between the femoral head and the femoral neck and between the neck and the stem body—allow the surgeon to adjust limb length, femoral offset, and femoral anteversion independently from stem size or position.

Exchangeable necks are considered particularly useful to accommodate difficult cases of femoral deformity [35, 57], to restore joint biomechanics, and prevent prosthetic impingement-related complications. However, they also have been reported to result in adverse effects, including fretting, corrosion, implant failure, metallic wear debris generation [10, 19, 27, 30, 46], and local tissue reaction [10, 24, 29, 51]. Whether they result in a net improvement to or impairment of reconstructive survivorship remains controversial [8, 13, 14, 34, 50, 52]. Few studies have compared prosthetic survivorship of exchangeable neck versus fixed neck THAs, and findings are divergent [2, 14, 17]. The Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry reported exchangeable neck stem THAs have a higher rate of revision (almost twice) at 10 years compared with fixed neck stem THAs, in patients with osteoarthritis, regardless of the bearing surface [2]; Meftah et al. [33] also found a high cumulative revision rate with one specific model of exchangeable neck THA, but did not have a comparison group with fixed neck THA. Others found no difference [17, 18, 43, 50]. Except for the Australian registry from a population-based cohort (albeit one in which data on patients’ medical histories are limited), all other studies on this topic have been performed on small cohorts and often without a comparative group of fixed neck THAs. In addition, to our knowledge, none investigated prosthetic survivorship of exchangeable neck versus fixed neck THAs according to the implantation indication osteoarthritis (meaning degenerative or posttraumatic arthritis) or traumatic indication, and none explored causes for revision.

We therefore sought (1) to compare the prosthetic survivorship and all-cause revision risk of exchangeable femoral neck THAs versus fixed neck THAs, taking known prosthetic revision risk factors into account; and (2) to compare the cause-specific revision risk of exchangeable femoral neck THAs versus fixed neck THAs, adjusting for known prosthetic risk factors.

Patients and Methods

We retrospectively used the French Health Insurance Information System (SNIIRAM), which has been validated [3, 20, 21, 22, 31, 37] and used in many studies [4, 5, 6, 9, 15, 28, 31, 32, 48, 49, 58, 59]. In France, health insurance is compulsory and it comprehensively covers the entire French population. It is divided into three main schemes: (1) general scheme covering employees in the industry, business, and service sectors, and some categories of workers considered as employees; (2) agricultural scheme covering farmers and farm employees; and (3) social scheme for independent professionals covering craftspeople, retailers, manufacturers, and independent workers. In our study, only the general scheme beneficiaries were included (approximately 77% of the population), because of technical reasons: for beneficiaries of other schemes, some information regarding medical details, long-term disease, or date of death do not follow the same recording process in the databases and are available only partially or with long delays. For beneficiaries of the general scheme, the SNIIRAM records with dates, outpatient drugs (Anatomical Therapeutic Classification codes), medical devices, services, and procedures reimbursed. The database does not specifically link indications for use of a particular device, service, or procedure to a reimbursement code, but contains patients’ demographic, administrative, and medical details (chronic conditions such as diabetes mellitus, cancer, or cardiovascular disease), and date of death. An anonymous, unique patient identifier links SNIIRAM information to national hospital discharge databases (Programme de Médicalisation des Systèmes d’Information [PMSI]), providing reasons for admission and discharge diagnoses (using International Statistical Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision [ICD-10]).

A population-based cohort of patients having primary THA was identified by the hospitals’ procedure claims and medical devices reimbursed; this method has been used and validated [20, 21]. The eligible population was all patients 40 years or older, having undergone unilateral primary THA between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2012 (48 months). Patients having received primary THA for bone cancer, prosthetic revision before the index date, simultaneous bilateral THA, not having received any reimbursement 6 months after THA (therefore impossible to followup: n = 767; 0.2%), or with incoherent data in the PMSI were excluded (n = 19,564; 3.8%). THA characteristics were missing for 5639 (1.7%), who were excluded from subsequent analyses, leaving 324,108 (Fig. 1), among which 246,940 received implants for osteoarthritis and 77,168 received implants owing to acute trauma; 79,605 were enrolled in 2009, 80,226 in 2010, 81,654 in 2011, and 82,623 in 2012. Twenty five thousand four hundred seventy-three patients (7.9%) were lost to followup (their mean followup was 908 days, versus 1436 days for patients followed up to December 31, 2014).
Fig. 1

A flow chart of our study population is shown. PMSI = Programme de Médicalisation des Systèmes d’Information.

Approval was obtained from the French data protection agency (Commission Nationale de l’Informatique et des Libertés). Informed consent was not required because information was collected anonymously.

Two types of necks were considered: an exchangeable femoral neck and a fixed femoral neck. Exchangeable femoral necks were defined as a femoral stem with a dual taper, meaning a trunnion between the femoral head and neck, and an additional trunnion between the neck and body of the stem. Fixed femoral neck implants were defined as femoral stems with only the femoral head being exchangeable (that is, the stem body and neck are monolithic, but the head is modular) (Fig. 2).
Fig. 2A–B

An (A) exchangeable femoral neck stem and (B) a fixed femoral neck stem are shown. An exchangeable femoral neck stem has a trunnion between the neck and ball head, and an additional trunnion between the neck and body of the stem. A fixed femoral neck stem has a trunnion only between the neck and ball head.

The primary outcome was THA revision (including any surgical revision in which the implant or any component was changed or removed), regardless of the cause for that revision. We also identified causes for revision with algorithms based on the reason for admission, procedures coded in hospital claims, and medications reimbursed. We classified them as revision “for implant failure or periprosthetic fracture,” “for dislocation,” “for infection,” or “for mechanical complication” (including aseptic loosening, osteolysis, corrosion, adverse tissue reactions). When it was not possible to identify the cause for revision, we stated “unspecified cause.” Followup started at the date the THA was performed (index date) until the patient underwent revision surgery, was lost to followup (not receiving any medical care reimbursements recorded in the databases), died, or until the followup ended (December 31, 2014), whichever came first. Median followup was 45 months (mean, 42 months; minimum, 1 day; maximum, 6 years). Patient death was considered a competing risk.

We collected a series of patient, implantation center, and THA characteristics known to be or suspected of being associated with a risk of postarthroplasty complications. Information regarding patients’ age, sex, and date of death came from the SNIIRAM database. Treatments were identified by prescriptions (Anatomical Therapeutic Classification codes) reimbursed at least once within 180 days before or after inclusion, namely antidepressants, antihypertensives, oral corticosteroids, osteoporosis treatments, psychostimulants, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, anxiolytic or hypnotic nonbenzodiazepines (non-BZD), and antipsychotics. Diabetes mellitus, morbid obesity (corresponding to a BMI greater than 30 kg/m2), Parkinson’s disease, immunodeficiency, and chronic kidney disease were defined (ICD-10 categories) on the basis of hospital discharge reports or chronic condition recorded the year before inclusion, with relevant prescriptions. The indication for THA (osteoarthritis or traumatic indication) was identified based on hospital discharge reports. The mean number of THAs performed per month (during the 4-year inclusion period) was calculated. Whether centers where the THAs were performed were private or public and the duration of hospital stay (in days) also were collected. Four types of THA fixation techniques (uncemented, both sides cemented, hybrid [femoral component cemented, acetabular component uncemented], and reverse hybrid [femoral component uncemented, acetabular component cemented]), and four different bearings (ceramic-on-ceramic [CoC], ceramic-on-polyethylene [CoP], metal-on-metal [MoM], and metal-on-polyethylene [MoP]) were analyzed.

Statistical Analysis

Cumulative incidence of revision (whatever the cause) was represented according to type of femoral neck using a Fine and Gray [16] proportional hazards regression model with death as a competing risk. Hazard ratios (HRs) for revision according to the type of femoral neck were assessed using univariate and multivariate Fine and Gray proportional hazards regression models adjusting for possible confounding factors: sex; age category at implantation: young (40–59 years), middle-aged (60–74 years), or elderly (≥ 75 years); indication for implantation (osteoarthritis, traumatic); diabetes mellitus; morbid obesity; Parkinson’s disease; immunodeficiency; medication (antidepressants, oral corticosteroids, antiosteoporotics, psychostimulants, benzodiazepines, non-BZD antiepileptics, non-BZD anxiolytic/hypnotic, antipsychotics); public or private sector; center activity volume (tertiles); hospital stay duration (three groups: < 6 days; 6–12 days; > 12 days); cement type (four categories); and bearing surface (four categories). These characteristics were included simultaneously in the multivariate Fine and Gray proportional hazards regression model [16].

We also fitted cause-specific Cox proportional hazards regression models for the following five indications for revision: implant failure or periprosthetic fracture, dislocation, infection, mechanical complication, and other cause, and we estimated cause-specific adjusted HRs. Assumption of proportional hazards was graphically assessed for each variable. Interactions between exposure and age and sex, indication, cement type, and bearing surface in association with prosthetic survivorship were investigated, and we performed analyses stratified on sex, age group, indication, cementation type, and bearing surface.

Cohort Description at Inclusion

The median age of the 324,108 patients included was 74 years (interquartile range, 64–81 years; mean, 72.6 years; SD, 11.7 years). Twenty-four percent of patients underwent THA for a traumatic indication. Sixty-two percent of the enrolled patients were women, and more likely received THA for a traumatic indication (29% versus 15% for men, p < 0.001), and were older than the men (75 versus 69 years, p < 0.001) (Supplemental Table 1. Supplemental materials are available with the online version of CORR ®.). Implantation was performed at a private-sector hospital in 58% of patients and 71% of procedures were performed in centers in which more than 14 procedures per month were done. Fixation was uncemented in 71% of patients, cemented in 11%, hybrid in 17%, and reverse hybrid in 2%. Bearing surfaces were CoC (32%), CoP (17%), MoM (3%), and MoP (48%). We also reported characteristics at inclusion, according to sex and indication for THA (Supplemental Table 1. Supplemental materials are available with the online version of CORR ®.).

An exchangeable femoral neck was implanted in a total of 8931 (3%) patients, with a stable proportion with time: 2.7% of patients included in 2009, 2.9% in 2010, 2.7% in 2011, and 2.8% in 2012. We reported patient characteristics, hospital stay, and bearing surface at inclusion, according to the type of femoral neck (Table 1). Exchangeable neck THAs are performed more frequently in young patients and in patients not experiencing trauma, and are performed mostly in public hospitals. Implants with neck exchangeability also are associated with other THA characteristics: they are used more frequently with MoM and CoC bearing surfaces and with uncemented THAs. Type of femoral neck was strongly associated with the hospital where the THA was performed. Among 891 centers where implants were performed, more than 5% of exchangeable neck THAs were done in 100 centers (globally, 21% of exchangeable neck THAs were performed at these 100 centers versus 0.47% among the 791 others; p < 0.0001). These 100 centers were more likely to be public hospitals (nine were teaching hospitals) with more than 38 procedures being performed per month. The characteristics of patients receiving THAs at centers performing low numbers of exchangeable neck implants versus at centers performing high numbers of exchangeable neck implants were similar.
Table 1

Baseline characteristics according to type of femoral neck

 

Fixed neck (%)

Exchangeable neck (%)

p Value*

Covariates

Number

(n = 315,177)

(n = 8931)

THA characteristics

 Cement type

   

< 0.001

  Cemented

34,376

11

3

 

  Hybrid

53,611

17

9

 

  Reverse hybrid

5040

2

2

 

  Uncemented

231,081

71

86

 

 Bearing surface

   

< 0.001

  CoC

104,584

32

46

 

  CoP

56,055

17

14

 

  MoM

8667

3

6

 

  MoP

154,802

48

35

 

Patient characteristics

 Sex

   

< 0.001

  Male

122,178

38

42

 

  Female

201,930

62

58

 

 Age category (years)

   

< 0.001

  40–59

46,945

14

21

 

  60–74

122,590

38

43

 

  ≥ 75

154,573

48

37

 

 Trauma indication

77,168

24

16

< 0.001

 Parkinson disease

13,158

4

3

< 0.001

 Diabetes mellitus

40,475

13

13

0.18

 Morbid obesity

24,678

8

8

0.03

 Treatments

    

  Benzodiazepine

163,289

50

50

0.24

  AH no BZD

45,534

14

14

0.37

  Antidepressant

73,418

23

21

< 0.001

  Antipsychotic

22,364

7

6

< 0.001

  Psychostimulant

3386

1

1

0.62

  Antiosteoporotic

42,311

13

12

0.02

  Oral corticosteroïds

83,198

26

27

0.02

Hospital characteristics

 Sector

   

< 0.001

  Public

136,853

41

71

 

  Private

187,255

59

29

 

 Number of THAs per month

   

< 0.001

  < 14

93,647

49

42

 

  14–38

158,262

29

33

 

  > 38

72,199

22

25

 

 Hospital stay duration (days)

   

< 0.001

  < 6

15,952

78

82

 

  6–12

254,695

5

5

 

  > 12

53,461

17

13

 

*Exchangeable versus fixed femoral neck THAs; percentages for fixed neck cement types = 101% owing to rounding; CoC = ceramic-on-ceramic; CoP = ceramic-on-polyethylene; MoM = metal-on-metal; MoP = metal-on-polyethylene; AH no BZD = anxiolytic or hypnotic nonbenzodiazepines.

Results

Survivorship and All-cause Revision

Patients receiving exchangeable neck stem implants were more likely to undergo revision than those with fixed neck stems designs (HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.24–1.49; p < 0.001). The cumulative incidence of prosthetic revision was 7% for THAs with exchangeable neck implants versus 5% for THAs with fixed neck implants (Fig. 3). After controlling for potential confounding variables such as patient age, sex, comorbidities, indication for THA, cementation, bearing used, and the center characteristics, we found that implantation of an exchangeable femoral neck design was associated with an increased adjusted HR of revision of 1.26 (95% CI, 1.14–1.38; p < 0.001) compared with fixed neck design (Table 2). This association had the same pattern for both implantation indications: adjusted HRs for revision for exchangeable neck THAs were 1.25 (95% CI, 1.13–1.39) and 1.19 (95% CI, 0.94–1.51) compared with fixed neck THAs in patients implanted for an indication of osteoarthritis or a traumatic indication, respectively. Other characteristics, including gender, age, indication for implantation, medications apart from psychostimulant and antiosteoporotic drugs, and center activity, were associated with prosthetic survivorship after controlling for all studied covariates; revision risk also was greater in patients who received an implant for a traumatic indication (Table 2).
Fig. 3

The cumulative incidence of revision THA according to the type of femoral neck is shown.

Table 2

Associations among THA, patients, hospital stay characteristics, and THA revision

Covariates

Values

Number

Revision (%)

HR

95% CI

p Value

Adjusted HR*,†

95% CI

p Value

THA characteristics

Exchangeable neck

No

315,177

3.7

1

Reference

< 0.0001

1

Reference

< 0.001

Yes

8931

4.9

1.36

(1.24–1.49)

 

1.26

(1.14–1.38)

 

THA cement type

Cemented

34,376

3.0

1

Reference

< 0.0001

1

Reference

< 0.001

Hybrid

53,611

2.9

0.94

(0.87–1.02)

 

0.99

(0.92–1.08)

 

Reverse hybrid

5040

4.5

1.52

(1.32–1.76)

 

1.53

(1.33–1.77)

 

Uncemented

231,081

4.0

1.31

(1.23–1.40)

 

1.31

(1.22–1.40)

 

Bearing surface

CoC

104,584

4.0

1.12

(1.07–1.16)

< 0.0001

1.07

(1.01–1.13)

< 0.001

CoP

56,055

3.5

0.99

(0.94–1.04)

 

1.02

(0.96–1.08)

 

MoM

8667

5.0

1.30

(1.18–1.44)

 

1.25

(1.12–1.38)

 

MoP

154,802

3.5

1

Reference

 

1

Reference

 

Patient characteristics

Sex

Male

122,178

3.8

1.05

(1.02–1.09)

0.004

1.09

(1.05–1.14)

< 0.001

Female

201,930

3.6

1

Reference

 

1

Reference

 

Age category (years)

40–59

46,945

4.7

1.24

(1.17–1.30)

< 0.0001

1.19

(1.13–1.25)

< 0.001

60–74

122,590

3.8

1

Reference

 

1

Reference

 

≥ 75

154,573

3.3

0.89

(0.85–0.92)

 

0.86

(0.82–0.90)

 

Trauma indication

No

246,940

3.7

1

Reference

< 0.0001

1

Reference

< 0.001

Yes

77,168

3.8

1.09

(1.05–1.14)

 

1.12

(1.06–1.19)

 

Parkinson disease

No

310,950

3.6

1

Reference

< 0.0001

1

Reference

< 0.001

Yes

13,158

4.9

1.39

(1.28–1.50)

 

1.26

(1.16–1.37)

 

Diabetes mellitus

No

283,633

3.7

1

Reference

0.24

1

Reference

0.491

Yes

40,475

3.8

1.03

(0.98–1.09)

 

1.02

(0.97–1.08)

 

Morbid Obesity

No

299,430

3.6

1

Reference

0.0004

1

Reference

< 0.001

Yes

24,678

4.2

1.16

(1.09–1.24)

 

1.14

(1.07–1.22)

 

Treatments

BZD

No

160,819

3.0

1

Reference

< 0.0001

  

< 0.001

Yes

163,289

4.4

1.42

(1.37–1.47)

 

1.28

(1.23–1.33)

 

AH no BZD

No

278,574

3.5

1

Reference

< 0.0001

1

Reference

< 0.001

Yes

45,534

4.9

1.43

(1.36–1.49)

 

1.24

(1.18–1.30)

 

Antidepressant

No

250,690

3.4

1

Reference

< 0.0001

1

Reference

< 0.001

Yes

73,418

4.9

1.47

(1.41–1.53)

 

1.31

(1.25–1.37)

 

Antipsychotic

No

301,744

3.6

1

Reference

< 0.0001

1

Reference

0.348

Yes

22,364

4.6

1.30

(1.22–1.39)

 

1.03

(0.97–1.11)

 

Psychostimulant

No

320,722

3.7

1

Reference

0.31

1

Reference

0.769

Yes

3386

4.2

1.09

(0.92–1.29)

 

1.03

(0.87–1.21)

 

Antiosteoporotic

No

281,797

3.7

1

Reference

0.02

1

Reference

0.008

Yes

42,311

3.9

1.06

(1.01–1.12)

 

1.08

(1.02–1.14)

 

Oral corticcosteroïds

No

240,910

3.5

1

Reference

< 0.0001

1

Reference

< 0.001

Yes

83,198

4.2

1.20

(1.15–1.25)

 

1.13

(1.09–1.18)

 

Hospital stay characteristics

Sector

Public

136,853

3.7

1.05

(1.01–1.08)

0.02

1.02

(0.98–1.06)

0.453

Private

187,255

3.7

1

Reference

 

1

Reference

 

Number of procedures per month

< 14

93,647

3.7

1.20

(1.14–1.27)

< 0.0001

1.18

(1.12–1.24)

< 0.001

14–38

158,262

4.0

1.09

(1.04–1.15)

 

1.09

(1.04–1.14)

 

> 38

72,199

3.3

1

Reference

 

1

Reference

 

Hospital. stay duration (days)

< 6

15,952

3.7

0.99

(0.91–1.08)

0.001

1.00

(0.92–1.09)

0.198

6–12

254,695

3.4

1

Reference

 

1

Reference

 

> 12

53,461

4.0

1.09

(1.04–1.15)

 

1.05

(1.00–1.10)

 

*p value class versus reference; adjusted hazard ratio of THA revision from multivariate Fine and Gray full regression model (adjusted for THA characteristics, patient characteristics, treatments, and hospital stay characteristics); HR = hazard ratio; CoC = ceramic-on-ceramic; CoP = ceramic-on-polyethylene; MoM = metal-on-metal; MoP = metal-on-polyethylene; BZD = benzodiazepine; AH no BZD = anxiolytic or hypnotic nonbenzodiazepines.

During the median 45-month followup (mean, 42 months; minimum, 1 day; maximum, 6 years), 11,968 individuals underwent prosthetic revision. The prosthetic revision rate was 4%. The overall cumulative incidence for revision, when taking into account death as a competing risk, was 1.9% at 1 year, 2.7% at 2 years, 3.2% at 3 years, 3.8% at 4 years, 4.3% at 5 years, and 4.7% at 6 years followup. The median time-to-event for all-cause revision was 338 days (interquartile range, 56–816 days). Fifty-nine percent of revised exchangeable neck THA implants were replaced with fixed neck femoral stems (compared with 3% of primary fixed necks replaced with an exchangeable stem when revised). Among patients who had revision surgery, we also compared stem-specific revision (defined as revision of the head only, or head and neck, or head, neck, and stem) rate according to the type of neck; this rate was higher in exchangeable neck THAs compared with fixed neck THAs (39% versus 34%; p = 0.016).

Cause-Specific Revision Risk

Patients who had THAs with an exchangeable neck implant were more likely to undergo revision for implant failure or periprosthetic fracture, and for mechanical complications (Table 3). Adjusted HRs for revision resulting from implant failure or periprosthetic fracture and adjusted HRs for revision resulting from mechanical complication were, respectively, 1.68 (95% CI, 1.24–2.27; p < 0.001) and 1.27 (95% CI, 1.13–1.43; p < 0.001) for exchangeable neck THAs compared with fixed ones. Similar results were observed when stratifying for gender, age group, indication, cementation type, and bearing surface (Supplemental Table 2. Supplemental materials are available with the online version of CORR ® .). Median time-to-event was, respectively, 93 (interquartile range [IQR], 32–498 days), 146 (IQR, 31–759 days), 210 (IQR, 30–708 days), 440 (IQR, 126–912 days), and 436 days (IQR, 170–850 days) for revisions resulting from dislocation, implant failure or periprosthetic fracture, infection, mechanical complication, and unspecified cause, respectively.
Table 3

Comparison of overall and cause-specific risks of THA revision according to type of THA femoral neck

Cause of revision

Frequency of THA revision

p Value

Cause-specific

p Value

Patients with fixed neck (n = 315,177 [97%])

Patients with exchangeable neck (n = 8931 [3%])

Risk of revision associated with type of femoral neck

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

Adjusted HR*

95% HR CI

All-cause

11,968

3.7

442

4.9

< 0.001

1.26

1.14–1.38

< 0.001

Periprosthetic fracture or implant failure

1050

0.3

45

0.5

< 0.001

1.68

1.24–2.27

< 0.001

Dislocation

2644

0.8

86

1.0

0.117

1.15

0.92–1.42

0.222

Infection

1345

0.4

37

0.4

0.992

0.95

0.69–1.33

0.954

Mechanical complication

7817

2.4

300

3.4

< 0.001

1.27

1.13–1.43

< 0.001

Other

285

0.1

15

0.1

0.052

1.62

0.96–2.76

0.073

Sum of different causes of revision (n = 13,141) > number of all-cause revisions (n = 11,968) because each revision could have multiple causes; *cause-specific adjusted hazard ratio of THA revision from multivariate Cox full model (adjusted for THA characteristics, patient characteristics, treatments, and hospital stay characteristics); HR = hazard ratio.

Discussion

Exchangeable neck stems have been used in THA to improve restoration of anteversion, offset, and limb length, and to reduce the risk of dislocation. However neck exchangeability has been reported to result in adverse effects such as stem fractures and acute local tissue reaction. Whether they result in a net improvement to or impairment of reconstructive survivorship remains controversial, with inconsistent results in relatively few comparative studies on the topic [2, 14, 17] (Table 4). In our study, which included a large, relatively unselected population, we found that the risk of revision was higher for exchangeable neck THAs compared with fixed ones. After controlling for potential confounding variables such as patient age, sex, comorbidities, indication for THA, THA bearing, cementation, and the center characteristics, we found that implantation of an exchangeable femoral neck THA was associated with an increased hazard ratio of revision compared with fixed neck THAs. In terms of cause-specific revision, exchangeable neck THAs had a higher incidence of revision for implant failure or periprosthetic fracture and of revision for mechanical complications.
Table 4

Registry and literature data for exchangeable and fixed femoral neck THA revision rates and risk

Source

Data period

Implant type

Cumulative revision rate (%)[95% CI]

Average followup (years)

Hazard ratio exchangeable vs fixed implant [95% CI]

Number of THAs

Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry [2]

2006–2014

Total = 988,667

(11.4% were revisions)

All THA

1.6 [1.6–1.7]

1

 
   

3.9 [3.9–4.0]

5

 
   

5.2 [5.1–5.3]

7

 
   

6.8 [6.7–6.9]

10

 
  

Exchangeable neck

(all models)

8.3 [7.5–9.2]

7

2.04 [1.87–2.22]

  

Fixed neck

(all models)

3.7 [3.6–3.8]

7

1.00 [reference]

Swedish Hip Register, [54]

1979–2014

Total = 396,197

(13% revisions)

All THA*

6.2 [5.9–6.5]

10

NP

New Zealand Joint Registry [41]

1999–2012

Total = 98,500

(12.9% revisions)

All THA*

1.3 [NP]

1

NP

3.3 [NP]

5

4.5 [NP]

7

6.9 [NP]

10

National Joint Registry for England, Wales and Northern Ireland [38]

 

All THA*

0.8 [0.7–0.8]

1

 
   

2.7 [2.7–2.8]

5

 
   

4.0 [3.9–4.1]

7

 
   

5.8 [5.6–5.9]

10

 

The Norwegian Arthroplasty Registry, [56]

1987–2014

Total = 190,962

(14.3% revisions)

All THA*

6.9 [6.6–7.2]

10

NP

Canadian Joint Replacement Registry [7]

2008–2013

Total = 216,358

(8.7% revisions)

All THA*

NP

NP

NP

Netherlands Arthroplasty Register [40]

2007–2012

Total = 114,110

(11.8% revisions)

All THA*

NP

NP

NP

Mihalko et al. [34]

Total = NP

Review

Exchangeable neck#

(all models)

0 to 9% [NP]

10 to 19

NP

  

Exchangeable neck#

(S-ROM)

16% [NP]

17

NP

Meftah et al. [33]

Total = 123

By one surgeon

Exchangeable neck#

(Rejuvenate)

28% [NP]

3

NP

Silverton et al. [52]

Total = 152

Single-center cohort

Exchangeable neck#

(Profemur Z)

10.6% [NP]

4.5

NP

Regis et al. [50]

Total = 168

66 Profemur R

102 Wagner SL

Exchangeable neck

(Profemur R)

9.1%§

2

NP

Fixed neck

(Wagner SL)

6.8%§

(p = 0.4)

Gerhardt et al. [18]

Total = 190

95 Profemur Z

95 Alloclassic

Zweymüller

Exchangeable neck

(Profemur R)

4%§

1

NP

Fixed neck

(Alloclassic Zweymüller)

4%§

(p = 0.4)

Fitch et al. [17]

Total = NP

692 Profemur Z

Exchangeable neck

(Profemur Z)

4.2% [2.6-5.8]

12

NP

Fixed neck

(All models)

3.9% [NP]

(p = 0.36)

Ollivier et al. [43]

Total = NP

170 Profemur Z

Exchangeable neck#

(Profemur Z)

NP

6

NP

Duwelius et al. [14]

Total = 878

594 Taper Kinectiv

284 Taper

By one surgeon

Exchangeable neck

(M/L Taper Kinectiv)

1% [0–2]

2

NP

Fixed neck

(M/L Taper)

1% [0–3]

(p = 0.94)

*Cumulative revision rates for exchangeable neck only, and for fixed neck only not provided, which makes comparison impossible;#cumulative revision rate for fixed femoral neck not provided, which makes comparison impossible; §cumulative risk for dislocation as outcome; NP = not provided

This study had several limitations. Regarding the implants, the alloys of the components (stem, exchangeable neck, and head) were not available, which would be interesting since the revision rate was found to be higher with a titanium alloy-cobalt alloy configuration [2]. In addition, the detailed design of the implant (such as the head diameter, surface finish, taper geometry, among others) was not available, nor was the brand of the implant; some models and designs of exchangeable neck implants seem to be better than others [2]. Consequently, our results might hide heterogeneity in the revision rates between the different kinds of exchangeable neck implants available on the market. Some specific exchangeable neck stem designs may offer similar survivorship to fixed neck stem designs. Nonetheless, we were interested in assessing a possible class issue regarding exchangeable neck stems, whatever the model. Our results showed exchangeable neck THAs have poorer survivorship than fixed neck ones, consistent with the results of the Australian registry [2], which found the same for all six exchangeable neck implants. Making the brand name of the THA implant available in hospital claims in the future might be of great interest. Other limitations were the lack of information regarding the surgical approach and use of dual-mobility bearing surfaces. This information was not available in the databases. We acknowledge that some complications, such as dislocations and periprosthetic fractures, are associated with the surgical technique [1, 11, 25], and dual-mobility articulations designed to reduce the risk of dislocation appear to be helpful [12], despite some remaining concerns about intraprosthetic dislocation [47].

Although we did not study stem-specific revision as the main outcome, we found in additional analysis that the stem-specific revision rate was higher for exchangeable neck THAs compared with fixed neck ones; the mechanism associated with these findings need to be confirmed in other studies. Among the hips revised for implant failure or periprosthetic fracture, we were not able to distinguish between periprosthetic fractures and implant failures. Although fractures of the neck are not uncommon with exchangeable femoral components, these events are probably mainly periprosthetic fractures, which represent one of the top five most-frequent causes for revision [61]. Regarding the mechanical complication designation, this covers a wide range of different types of failures and because of the nature of the data we used, we were not able to identify the mechanism having led to the revision. Previous studies were conducted to understand the mechanisms of failure related to the exchangeable neck implant. Corrosion at the exchangeable neck-body stem, fretting, or mechanically assisted crevice corrosion was identified as specifically associated with the femoral exchangeable neck, possibly resulting in adverse local tissue reactions [24, 30, 36, 39, 45, 51, 52]. Other typical findings include iliopsoas and abductor tendinopathy, peritendinous collections, and metallic debris, which might generate osteolysis [13, 29]. We assume some of the revisions resulting from mechanical complications in our cohort probably included these typical issues, although we were not able to identify them precisely. Finally, the accuracy of primary THA and revision procedure codes we used as inclusion and outcome criteria might be open to criticism. However, in our algorithm, we checked the agreement between the coded procedure and the implanted device to track for coding errors and we excluded the few patients (5.5%) with incoherent data. Moreover, this database is used to calculate payments for inpatient care with internal and external quality control processes. Coding errors, if any, would be marginal and likely would not differ among the study groups.

The overall risk of prosthetic revision observed after 45 months median followup is consistent with data from international registries, and supports the external validity of our study (Table 4). Likewise, the higher failure rate we found for exchangeable femoral neck THAs (Table 2) is consistent with rates in some previous studies (Table 4). Nonetheless, in the Australian registry, the risk of revision for exchangeable neck THAs was almost twice that of fixed neck THAs [2], an effect size much higher than what we observed. We speculate but cannot prove that this may be a function of the models, types, and brands of exchangeable neck implants used. The risk of revision varies from 3% to 18% at 5 years in the Australian registry [2], and was reported as much as 28% for one specific model [33]. We believe the lower (5%) revision rate we found might be the result of two poorly performing stems being rarely used in our population, and the exchangeable neck models with the highest failure rates in the Australian registry were not distributed in France. Revision risk also varies according to stem-neck interface material [2], with a titanium-cobalt chromium interface experiencing 1.5- to twofold higher risks of revision than a titanium-titanium interface. In addition to the Australian registry, two studies comparing THA survivorship according to type of neck both focused on only one model of exchangeable neck THA [14, 17] and included small cohorts, with findings opposite those of the Australian registry (Table 4). Our study therefore fills a gap in knowledge, not only because it is a nationwide “real-life” cohort, with different devices implanted, but also because we were able to control for important confounding factors in our analyses.

Regarding cause-specific revision, Wright et al. [60], Sporer et al. [53], and Talmo et al. [55] presented case reports of exchangeable femoral neck breakage or spontaneous dissociation. Our results regarding cause-specific revision risk extend this finding of higher risk of revision because of implant failure or periprosthetic fracture and because of mechanical complications in a large nationwide cohort. We found no association between revision attributable to dislocation and exchangeable neck THAs. Neck exchangeability was not found to be efficient in reducing the dislocation rate [50], yet restoration of offset and reducing the risk of dislocation are the main purposes of exchangeable femoral necks. Our work provides an answer regarding whether an exchangeable femoral neck results in a net improvement to or an impairment of reconstructive survivorship.

Exchangeable-neck THAs have a poorer survivorship independent of other prosthetic revision risk factors. If causal, it implies patients receiving exchangeable neck THAs are not given the best possible chances compared with patients receiving fixed neck THAs. Whatever the mechanism, expected anatomic and functional benefits should be assessed carefully before choosing this design, which might be reserved for patients with severe proximal femoral deformities that preclude the use of fixed neck femoral stems.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Annie Rudnichi MD, MSc (French National Agency for Medicines and Health Products Safety, Saint-Denis, France) for her contribution in the acquisition of the data.

Supplementary material

11999_2017_5260_MOESM1_ESM.doc (90 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 89 kb)
11999_2017_5260_MOESM2_ESM.doc (78 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOC 78 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Amlie E, Havelin LI, Furnes O, Baste V, Nordsletten L, Hovik O, Dimmen S. Worse patient-reported outcome after lateral approach than after anterior and posterolateral approach in primary hip arthroplasty: a cross-sectional questionnaire study of 1,476 patients 1–3 years after surgery. Acta Orthop. 2014;85:463–469.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. Annual Report 2014. Available at: https://aoanjrr.sahmri.com/annual-reports-2014. Accessed October 14, 2015.
  3. 3.
    Bernard MA, Bénichou J, Blin P, Weill A, Bégaud B, Abouelfath A, Moore N, Fourrier-Réglat A; CADEUS Team. Use of health insurance claim patterns to identify patients using nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for rheumatoid arthritis. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2012 21:573–583.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beziz D, Colas S, Collin C, Dray-Spira R, Zureik M. Association between exposure to benzodiazepines and related drugs and survivorship of total hip replacement in arthritis: a population-based cohort study of 246,940 patients. PloS One. 2016;11:e0155783.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bouillon K, Bertrand M, Boudali L, Ducimetière P, Dray-Spira R, Zureik M. Short-term risk of bleeding during heparin bridging at initiation of vitamin K antagonist therapy in more than 90 000 patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation managed in outpatient care. J Am Heart Assoc. 2016; 5:pii e004065.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bouillon K, Bertrand M, Maura G, Blotière PO, Ricordeau P, Zureik M. Risk of bleeding and arterial thromboembolism in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation either maintained on a vitamin K antagonist or switched to a non-vitamin K-antagonist oral anticoagulant: a retrospective, matched-cohort study. Lancet Haematol. 2015;2:e150–159.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Canadian Institute for Health Information. Hip and Knee Replacements in Canada: Canadian Joint Replacement Registry 2014 Annual Report. Available at: https://secure.cihi.ca/free_products/CJRR%202014%20Annual%20Report_EN-web.pdf. Accessed October 14, 2015.
  8. 8.
    Carothers JT, Archibeck MJ, Tripuraneni KR. Modular versus nonmodular femoral necks for primary total hip arthroplasty. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2015;44:411–414.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Colas S, Collin C, Piriou P, Zureik M. Association between total hip replacement characteristics and 3-year prosthetic survivorship: a population-based study. JAMA Surg. 2015;150:979–988.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cooper HJ, Urban RM, Wixson RL, Meneghini RM, Jacobs JJ. Adverse local tissue reaction arising from corrosion at the femoral neck-body junction in a dual-taper stem with a cobalt-chromium modular neck. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95:865–872.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    De Geest T, Vansintjan P, De Loore G. Direct anterior total hip arthroplasty: complications and early outcome in a series of 300 cases. Acta Orthop Belg. 2013;79:166–173.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    De Martino I, Triantafyllopoulos GK, Sculco PK, Sculco TP. Dual mobility cups in total hip arthroplasty. World J Orthop. 2014;5:180–187.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dimitriou D, Liow MH, Tsai TY, Leone WA, Li G, Kwon YM. Early outcomes of revision surgery for taper corrosion of dual taper total hip arthroplasty in 187 patients. J Arthroplasty. 2016;31:1549–1554.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Duwelius PJ, Burkhart B, Carnahan C, Branam G, Ko LM, Wu Y, Froemke C, Wang L, Grunkemeier G. Modular versus nonmodular neck femoral implants in primary total hip arthroplasty: which is better? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472:1240–1245.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fagot JP, Blotière PO, Ricordeau P, Weill A, Alla F, Allemand H. Does insulin glargine increase the risk of cancer compared with other basal insulins?: a French nationwide cohort study based on national administrative databases. Diabetes Care. 2013;36:294–301.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fine JP, Gray RJ. A proportional hazards model for the subdistribution of a competing risk. J Am Stat Assoc. 1999;94:496–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fitch DA, Ancarani C, Bordini B. Long-term survivorship and complication rate comparison of a cementless modular stem and cementless fixed neck stems for primary total hip replacement. Int Orthop. 2015;39:1827–1832.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gerhardt DM, Bisseling P, de Visser E, van Susante JL. Modular necks in primary hip arthroplasty without anatomical deformity: no clear benefit on restoration of hip geometry and dislocation rate: an exploratory study. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29:1553–1558.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ghanem E, Ward DM, Robbins CE, Nandi S, Bono JV, Talmo CT. Corrosion and adverse local tissue reaction in one type of modular neck stem. J Arthroplasty. 2015;30:1787–1793.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Grammatico-Guillon L, Baron S, Gaborit C, Rusch E, Astagneau P. Quality assessment of hospital discharge database for routine surveillance of hip and knee arthroplasty-related infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2014;35:646–651.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Grammatico-Guillon L, Baron S, Rosset P, Gaborit C, Bernard L, Rusch E, Astagneau P. Surgical site infection after primary hip and knee arthroplasty: a cohort study using a hospital database. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2015;36:1198–1207.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hanf M, Quantin C, Farrington P, Benzenine E, Hocine NM, Velten M, Tubert-Bitter P, Escolano S. Validation of the French national health insurance information system as a tool in vaccine safety assessment: application to febrile convulsions after pediatric measles/mumps/rubella immunization. Vaccine. 201331:5856–5862.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Helm CS, Greenwald AS. The rationale and performance of modularity in total hip arthroplasty. Orthopedics. 2005;28(9 suppl):s1113–1115.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jacobs JJ. Corrosion at the head-neck junction: why is this happening now? J Arthroplasty. 2016;31:1378–1380.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jolles BM, Bogoch ER. Surgical approach for total hip arthroplasty: direct lateral or posterior? J Rheumatol. 2004;31:1790–1796.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Keggi JM. Femoral neck modularity: a bridge too far—opposes. Semin Arthroplasty. 2014;25:99–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Khurana S, Nobel TB, Merkow JS, Walsh M, Egol KA. Total hip arthroplasty for posttraumatic osteoarthritis of the hip fares worse than THA for primary osteoarthritis. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2015;44:321–325.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kirchgesner J, Lemaitre M, Rudnichi A, Racine A, Zureik M, Carbonnel F, Dray-Spira R. Therapeutic management of inflammatory bowel disease in real-life practice in the current era of anti-TNF agents: analysis of the French administrative health databases 2009-2014. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2017;45:37–49.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kwon YM. Evaluation of the painful dual taper modular neck stem total hip arthroplasty: do they all require revision? J Arthroplasty. 2016;31:1385–1389.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lanting BA, Teeter MG, Vasarhelyi EM, Ivanov TG, Howard JL, Naudie DDR. Correlation of corrosion and biomechanics in the retrieval of a single modular neck total hip arthroplasty design: modular neck total hip arthroplasty system. J Arthroplasty. 2015;30:135–140.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Martin-Latry K, Bégaud B. Pharmacoepidemiological research using French reimbursement databases: yes we can! Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2010;19:256–265.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Maura G, Blotière PO, Bouillon K, Billionnet C, Ricordeau P, Alla F, Zureik M. Comparison of the short-term risk of bleeding and arterial thromboembolic events in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients newly treated with dabigatran or rivaroxaban versus vitamin K antagonists: a French nationwide propensity-matched cohort study. Circulation. 2015;132:1252–1260.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Meftah M, Haleem AM, Burn MB, Smith KM, Incavo SJ. Early corrosion-related failure of the rejuvenate modular total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96:481–487.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Mihalko WM, Wimmer MA, Pacione CA, Laurent MP, Murphy RF, Rider C. How have alternative bearings and modularity affected revision rates in total hip arthroplasty? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472:3747–3758.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Miki H, Sugano N. Modular neck for prevention of prosthetic impingement in cases with excessively anteverted femur. Clin Biomech (Bristol Avon). 2011;26:944–949.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Mistry JB, Chughtai M, Elmallah RK, Diedrich A, Le S, Thomas M, Mont MA. Trunnionosis in total hip arthroplasty: a review. J Orthop Traumatol. 2016;17:1–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Moulis G, Lapeyre-Mestre M, Palmaro A, Pugnet G, Montastruc JL, Sailler L. French health insurance databases: what interest for medical research? Rev Med Interne. 2015;36:411–417.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    National Joint Registry. NJR 11th Annual Report 2014. National Joint Registry for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Surgical data to 31 December 2013. Available at: http://www.njrcentre.org.uk/njrcentre/Portals/0/Documents/England/Reports/11th_annual_report/NJR%2011th%20Annual%20Report%202014.pdf. Accessed October 14, 2015.
  39. 39.
    Nawabi DH, Do HT, Ruel A, Lurie B, Elpers ME, Wright T, Potter HG, Westrich GH. Comprehensive analysis of a recalled modular total hip system and recommendations for management. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016;98:40–47.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Netherlands Orthopaedic Association. Insight into Quality of Orthopaedic Care in the Netherlands. Annual Report of the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (Landelijke Registratie Orthopedische Implantaten) 2012. Available at: http://www.lroi.nl/uploads/dd/hs/ddhsXrrhkkSoA_vpBMBMKA/LROI-report-Executive-summary-Insight-into-quality-of-orthopaedic-care-in-the-Netherlands.pdf. Accessed October 14, 2015.
  41. 41.
    New Zealand Orthopaedic Association. The New Zealand Joint Registry. Fourteen Year Report. January 1999 to December 2012. Available at: http://www.nzoa.org.nz/system/files/NJR%2014%20Year%20Report.pdf. Accessed October 14, 2015.
  42. 42.
    Noble PC, Alexander JW, Lindahl LJ, Yew DT, Granberry WM, Tullos HS. The anatomic basis of femoral component design. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1988;235:148–165.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ollivier M, Parratte S, Galland A, Lunebourg A, Argenson JN. Are titanium-on-titanium TiAl6V4 modular necks safe in total hip arthroplasty for non-overweight patients? Results of a prospective series at a minimum follow-up of 7 years. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2015;25:1147–1152.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Omlor GW Ullrich H, Krahmer K, Jung A, Aldinger G, Aldinger P. A stature-specific concept for uncemented, primary total hip arthroplasty10-year results in 155 patients using two stem shapes and modular necks. Acta Orthop. 2010;81:126–133.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Osman K, Panagiotidou AP, Khan M, Blunn G, Haddad FS. Corrosion at the head-neck interface of current designs of modular femoral components: essential questions and answers relating to corrosion in modular head-neck junctions. Bone Joint J. 2016;98:579–584.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Palmisano AC, Nathani A, Weber AE, Blaha JD. Femoral neck modularity: a bridge too far—affirms. Semin Arthroplasty. 2014;25:93–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Plummer DR, Haughom BD, Della Valle CJ. Dual mobility in total hip arthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am. 2014;45:1–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Raguideau F, Lemaitre M, Dray-Spira R, Zureik M. Association between oral fluoroquinolone use and retinal detachment. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2016;134:415–421.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Raguideau F, Mezzarobba M, Zureik M, Weill A, Ricordeau P, Alla F. Compliance with pregnancy prevention plan recommendations in 8672 French women of childbearing potential exposed to acitretin. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2015;24:526–533.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Regis D, Sandri A, Bartolozzi P. Stem modularity alone is not effective in reducing dislocation rate in hip revision surgery. J Orthop Traumatol. 2009;10:167–171.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Restrepo C, Ross D, Restrepo S, Heller S, Goyal N, Moore R, Hozack WJ. Adverse clinical outcomes in a primary modular neck/stem system. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29(9 suppl):173–178.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Silverton CD, Jacobs JJ, Devitt JW, Cooper HJ. Midterm results of a femoral stem with a modular neck design: clinical outcomes and metal ion analysis. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29:1768–1773.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Sporer SM, DellaValle C, Jacobs J, Wimmer M. A case of disassociation of a modular femoral neck trunion after total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2006;21:918–921.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register Annual Report 2012. Available at: http://www.shpr.se/en/Publications/DocumentsReports.aspx. Accessed October 15, 2015.
  55. 55.
    Talmo CT, Sharp KG, Malinowska M, Bono JV, Ward DM, LaReau J. Spontaneous modular femoral head dissociation complicating total hip arthroplasty. Orthopedics. 2014;37:e592–595.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    The Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. Available at: http://nrlweb.ihelse.net/eng/#Publications. Accessed October 15, 2016.
  57. 57.
    Traina F, De Fine M, Tassinari E, Sudanese A, Calderoni PP, Toni A. Modular neck prostheses in DDH patients: 11-year results. J Orthop Sci. 2011;16:14–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Tricotel A, Collin C, Zureik M. Impact of the sharp changes in the use of contraception in 2013 on the risk of pulmonary embolism in France. J Thromb Haemost. 2015;13:1576–1580.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Weill A, Dalichampt M, Raguideau F, Ricordeau P, Blotière PO, Rudant J, Alla F, Zureik M. Low-dose oestrogen combined oral contraception and risk of pulmonary embolism, stroke, and myocardial infarction in five million French women: a cohort study. BMJ. 2016;353:i2002.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Wright G, Sporer S, Urban R, Jacobs J. Fracture of a modular femoral neck after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92:1518–1521.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Zinar R, Schmalzried TP. Why hip implants fail: patient, surgeon, or device? Semin Arthroplasty. 2015;26:118–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sandrine Colas
    • 1
    Email author
  • Assia Allalou
    • 1
  • Antoine Poichotte
    • 2
  • Philippe Piriou
    • 3
  • Rosemary Dray-Spira
    • 1
  • Mahmoud Zureik
    • 1
  1. 1.French National Agency for Medicines and Health Products SafetySaint-DenisFrance
  2. 2.Centre Hospitalier Loire Vendée OcéanChallansFrance
  3. 3.Clinique du ParcAutunFrance

Personalised recommendations