Higher risk of 2-year cup revision of ceramic-on-ceramic versus ceramic-on-polyethylene bearing: analysis of 33,454 primary press-fit total hip arthroplasties registered in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI).
Aseptic loosening
bearing
early revision
press-fit
primary stability
total hip arthroplasty
Journal
Hip international : the journal of clinical and experimental research on hip pathology and therapy
ISSN: 1724-6067
Titre abrégé: Hip Int
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9200413
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Mar 2023
Mar 2023
Historique:
pubmed:
4
1
2022
medline:
3
3
2023
entrez:
3
1
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The influence of bearing on short-term revision in press-fit total hip arthroplasty (THA) remains under-reported. The aim of this study was to describe 2-year cup revision rates of ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC) and ceramic-on-polyethylene (CoPE). Primary press-fit THAs with one of the three most used cups available with both CoC or CoPE bearing recorded in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI) were included (2007-2019). Primary outcome was 2-year cup revision for all reasons. Secondary outcomes were: reasons for revision, incidence of different revision procedures and use of both bearings over time. 2-year Kaplan-Meier cup revision rate in 33,454 THAs (12,535 CoC; 20,919 CoPE) showed a higher rate in CoC (0.67% [95% CI, 0.54-0.81]) compared to CoPE (0.44% [95% CI, 0.34-0.54]) ( A higher 2-year cup revision rate in press-fit THA was observed in CoC compared to CoPE. Cup loosening was the only significantly different reason for revision and seen more often in CoC and mostly aseptic. Future randomised controlled trials need to confirm causality, since the early cup revision data provided has the potential to be useful when choosing the bearing in press-fit THA, when combined with other factors like bone quality and patient and implant characteristics.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
UNASSIGNED
The influence of bearing on short-term revision in press-fit total hip arthroplasty (THA) remains under-reported. The aim of this study was to describe 2-year cup revision rates of ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC) and ceramic-on-polyethylene (CoPE).
PATIENTS AND METHODS
UNASSIGNED
Primary press-fit THAs with one of the three most used cups available with both CoC or CoPE bearing recorded in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI) were included (2007-2019). Primary outcome was 2-year cup revision for all reasons. Secondary outcomes were: reasons for revision, incidence of different revision procedures and use of both bearings over time.
RESULTS
UNASSIGNED
2-year Kaplan-Meier cup revision rate in 33,454 THAs (12,535 CoC; 20,919 CoPE) showed a higher rate in CoC (0.67% [95% CI, 0.54-0.81]) compared to CoPE (0.44% [95% CI, 0.34-0.54]) (
CONCLUSIONS
UNASSIGNED
A higher 2-year cup revision rate in press-fit THA was observed in CoC compared to CoPE. Cup loosening was the only significantly different reason for revision and seen more often in CoC and mostly aseptic. Future randomised controlled trials need to confirm causality, since the early cup revision data provided has the potential to be useful when choosing the bearing in press-fit THA, when combined with other factors like bone quality and patient and implant characteristics.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34974763
doi: 10.1177/11207000211064975
pmc: PMC9978866
doi:
Substances chimiques
Polyethylene
9002-88-4
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
280-287Références
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2011 Jan;26(1):46-51
pubmed: 20888676
Acta Orthop. 2020 Feb;91(1):33-41
pubmed: 31663413
EFORT Open Rev. 2018 May 21;3(5):217-224
pubmed: 29951259
Bone Joint J. 2016 Jan;98-B(1 Suppl A):14-7
pubmed: 26733634
Chin Med J (Engl). 2015 May 5;128(9):1223-31
pubmed: 25947407
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014 Sep;472(9):2779-89
pubmed: 24771260
PLoS One. 2019 Apr 9;14(4):e0214855
pubmed: 30964880
Acta Orthop. 2007 Dec;78(6):739-45
pubmed: 18236179
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012 May 16;94(10):874-80
pubmed: 22617914
Acta Orthop. 2011 Jun;82(3):258-67
pubmed: 21619500
Acta Orthop. 2016 Aug;87(4):363-7
pubmed: 27299418
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009 Dec;467(12):3290-6
pubmed: 19690932
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006 Jul;448:39-45
pubmed: 16826094
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016 Oct;474(10):2213-8
pubmed: 27249955
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011 Aug;469(8):2194-206
pubmed: 21107923
Bone Joint J. 2018 Feb;100-B(2):134-142
pubmed: 29437054
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2020 Jul 1;102(13):1177-1185
pubmed: 32618925
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015 Sep 2;97(17):1386-97
pubmed: 26333733
J Arthroplasty. 2013 Feb;28(2):359-67
pubmed: 22854350
Acta Orthop. 2019 Aug;90(4):312-317
pubmed: 30994043
Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin. 2012;15 Suppl 1:350-2
pubmed: 23009537
Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2008 Jun;16(6):638-46
pubmed: 18362080
Med Eng Phys. 2007 May;29(4):465-71
pubmed: 16901743
Clin Med Res. 2007 Jun;5(2):139-42
pubmed: 17607050
JB JS Open Access. 2020 May 15;5(2):e0075
pubmed: 33123668
Biomed Res Int. 2017;2017:8756432
pubmed: 28497067
Int Orthop. 2021 Jun;45(6):1447-1454
pubmed: 33459828
Orthopedics. 2015 Apr;38(4):e331-8
pubmed: 25901628
Arthritis Res Ther. 2013;15(6):223
pubmed: 24321104
Int Orthop. 2014 Jan;38(1):7-12
pubmed: 23982638
J Arthroplasty. 2016 Jun;31(6):1240-1245
pubmed: 26730451
J Arthroplasty. 2014 Jun;29(6):1285-8
pubmed: 24444568
Int Orthop. 2008 Oct;32(5):597-604
pubmed: 17443324
Acta Orthop. 2018 Apr;89(2):163-169
pubmed: 29160130
Acta Orthop. 2016 Feb;87(1):48-54
pubmed: 26569616
Int Orthop. 2021 Mar;45(3):593-604
pubmed: 33479835
Sci Rep. 2018 Apr 12;8(1):5931
pubmed: 29651151