Survival and revision causes of hip resurfacing arthroplasty and the Mitch proximal epiphyseal replacement: results from the Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register.
Aged
Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip
/ adverse effects
Denmark
/ epidemiology
Epiphyses
/ surgery
Female
Femoral Neck Fractures
/ etiology
Hip Prosthesis
Humans
Incidence
Male
Middle Aged
Osteoarthritis, Hip
/ epidemiology
Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care
Prosthesis Design
Prosthesis Failure
Registries
/ statistics & numerical data
Reoperation
/ methods
Risk Assessment
Risk Factors
Journal
Acta orthopaedica
ISSN: 1745-3682
Titre abrégé: Acta Orthop
Pays: Sweden
ID NLM: 101231512
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 2019
12 2019
Historique:
pmc-release:
01
12
2019
pubmed:
26
7
2019
medline:
12
2
2020
entrez:
26
7
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Background and purpose - The Mitch proximal epiphyseal replacement (PER) was developed to preserve proximal femoral bone and minimize femoral neck fracture associated with hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA). We studied the survival and risk of revision of HRA compared with cementless metal-on-polyethylene (MoP) total hip arthroplasty (THA) and the survival and risk of revision of the Mitch PER compared with MoP THA.Patients and methods - Using propensity score, we matched 1,057 HRA to 1,057 MoP THA and 202 Mitch PER to 1,010 MoP THA from the Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register. To estimate the relative risk (RR) of revision, we used regression with the pseudo-value approach and treated death as a competing risk.Results - The cumulative incidence for any revision of HRA at 10 years' follow-up was 11% (95% confidence interval [CI] 9.1-13) and 6.4% (CI 5.8-7.0) for MoP THA. The RR of any revision was 1.5 (CI 1.1-2.1) for HRA at 10 years' follow-up. By excluding the ASR components, the RR of revision at 10 years was 1.2 (CI 0.8-1.7). The cumulative incidence of revision was 9.6% (CI 4.2-18) for Mitch PER and 5.4% (CI 5.1-5.7) for MoP THA at 8 years. The RR of revision was 2.0 (CI 0.9-4.3) for Mitch PER at 8 years' follow-up.Interpretation - The HRA had increased risk of revision compared with the MoP THA. When excluding ASR, the HRA group had similar risk of revision compared with MoP THA. The Mitch PER did not have a statistically significant increased risk of revision compared with MoP THA.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31340710
doi: 10.1080/17453674.2019.1646201
pmc: PMC6844433
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
523-529Références
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011 Dec 21;93(24):2287-93
pubmed: 22258775
Stat Med. 2014 Mar 30;33(7):1242-58
pubmed: 24122911
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011 May 28;11:83
pubmed: 21619668
Stat Med. 2007 Oct 30;26(24):4505-19
pubmed: 17348080
Med Eng Phys. 2011 Dec;33(10):1203-11
pubmed: 21757392
Acta Orthop. 2015 Feb;86(1):108-13
pubmed: 25238440
Bone Joint J. 2014 Nov;96-B(11 Supple A):23-6
pubmed: 25381403
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015 Nov;473(11):3431-42
pubmed: 25804881
Stat Med. 2012 May 20;31(11-12):1074-88
pubmed: 22081496
Clin Epidemiol. 2015 Nov 17;7:449-90
pubmed: 26604824
Eur J Epidemiol. 2014 Aug;29(8):541-9
pubmed: 24965263
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014 Jul;472(7):2217-30
pubmed: 24700446
Acta Orthop. 2013 Aug;84(4):342-7
pubmed: 23799348
Acta Orthop Scand. 2004 Aug;75(4):434-41
pubmed: 15370588
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011 Feb;93(2):164-71
pubmed: 21282753
Acta Orthop. 2011 Jun;82(3):258-67
pubmed: 21619500
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006 Oct;88(10):1303-8
pubmed: 17012418
Bone Joint J. 2016 Mar;98-B(3):320-5
pubmed: 26920956
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008 Jul;90(7):847-51
pubmed: 18591590
Acta Orthop. 2010 Oct;81(5):548-55
pubmed: 20919809
Lancet. 2012 Nov 17;380(9855):1759-66
pubmed: 23036895