Association of Sex With Risk of 2-Year Revision Among Patients Undergoing Total Hip Arthroplasty.
Adult
Aged
Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip
/ statistics & numerical data
Cohort Studies
Female
Hip Prosthesis
/ statistics & numerical data
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Postoperative Complications
/ epidemiology
Prosthesis Failure
/ etiology
Reoperation
/ statistics & numerical data
Risk Assessment
Risk Factors
Sex Distribution
Sex Factors
Treatment Outcome
United States
Journal
JAMA network open
ISSN: 2574-3805
Titre abrégé: JAMA Netw Open
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101729235
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 06 2021
01 06 2021
Historique:
entrez:
2
6
2021
pubmed:
3
6
2021
medline:
30
12
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The worldwide population is aging and includes more female individuals than male individuals, with higher rates of total hip arthroplasty (THA) among female individuals. Although research on this topic has been limited to date, several studies are currently under way. To evaluate the association between sex and 2-year revision after THA. This cohort study used data from statewide databases in New York and California between October 1, 2015, and December 31, 2018. Patients 18 years or older with osteoarthritis who underwent THA and had sex recorded in the database were included in the analysis. Total hip arthroplasty. The outcome of interest was the difference in early, all-cause revision surgery rates after primary THA between women and men. The association of sex with the revision rate was examined using Cox proportional hazards regression analysis. Of 132 826 patients included in the study, 74 002 (55.7%) were women; the mean (SD) age was 65.9 (11.0) years, and the median follow-up time was 1.3 years (range, 0.0-3.0 years). The 2-year revision rate was 2.5% (95% CI, 2.4%-2.6%) among women and 2.1% (95% CI, 2.0%-2.2%) among men. After adjusting for demographic characteristics, comorbidities, and facility volume, a minimal clinically meaningful difference was observed in revision rates despite women having a higher risk of all-cause revision compared with men (hazard ratio, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.07-1.26; P < .001). The risk of revision was increased among women compared with men in the subgroup of patients who were younger than 55 years (hazard ratio, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.20-1.81; P < .001). In this cohort study, no clinically meaningful difference in all-cause revision rates after primary THA was found between men and women at 2-year follow-up. The modest difference in the risk of revision between men and women in a small subgroup of patients younger than 55 years suggests that the risk of revision in this population should be studied further.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34076699
pii: 2780551
doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.10687
pmc: PMC8173374
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e2110687Subventions
Organisme : FDA HHS
ID : U01 FD006936
Pays : United States
Références
J Arthroplasty. 2020 Jun;35(6):1651-1657
pubmed: 32057597
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005 Jul;87(7):1487-97
pubmed: 15995115
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2014 Jun;66(6):907-15
pubmed: 24285406
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84-A Suppl 2:2-20
pubmed: 12479335
J Arthroplasty. 2002 Jan;17(1):70-7
pubmed: 11805928
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011 Sep 7;93(17):1597-604
pubmed: 21915574
J Natl Med Assoc. 2011 Jan;103(1):31-5
pubmed: 21329244
Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2005 Sep;13(9):769-81
pubmed: 15978850
Med Care. 2002 Jun;40(6):461-70
pubmed: 12021672
Arthritis Rheum. 1994 May;37(5):687-94
pubmed: 8185695
Acta Orthop. 2016 Feb;87(1):48-54
pubmed: 26569616
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004 May;86(5):963-74
pubmed: 15118039
JAMA Intern Med. 2013 Mar 25;173(6):435-41
pubmed: 23420484
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002 Feb;84(2):171-7
pubmed: 11861721
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009 Jan;467(1):135-40
pubmed: 18780137
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010 Nov;468(11):3070-6
pubmed: 20499292
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015 Sep 2;97(17):1386-97
pubmed: 26333733
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014 Dec 17;96 Suppl 1:34-41
pubmed: 25520417
Lancet. 2017 Apr 8;389(10077):1424-1430
pubmed: 28209371
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007 Oct;89 Suppl 3:144-51
pubmed: 17908880
Lancet. 2019 Apr 27;393(10182):1745-1759
pubmed: 31034380
Acta Orthop. 2020 Feb;91(1):33-41
pubmed: 31663413
J Abnorm Soc Psychol. 1962 Sep;65:145-53
pubmed: 13880271
J Arthroplasty. 2014 Jul;29(7):1412-7
pubmed: 24582159
J Arthroplasty. 2017 Jul;32(7):2088-2092
pubmed: 28336249
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003 Jan;85(1):27-32
pubmed: 12533568
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011 Jan;469(1):209-17
pubmed: 20625950
Acta Orthop. 2014 Aug;85(4):396-402
pubmed: 24954490
Prev Med. 2007 Oct;45(4):247-51
pubmed: 17950122
J Arthroplasty. 2016 Dec;31(12):2941-2948
pubmed: 27659397
N Engl J Med. 2000 Apr 6;342(14):1016-22
pubmed: 10749964
JB JS Open Access. 2018 Aug 15;3(3):e0007
pubmed: 30533590
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2018 Mar 21;100(6):449-458
pubmed: 29557860
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014 Dec 17;96 Suppl 1:42-51
pubmed: 25520418
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012 Oct 17;94(20):1825-32
pubmed: 23079874