Battle of the titans: Survivorship analysis of the 3 most common types of uncemented femoral stems used across national registries.
Journal
Journal of orthopaedics
ISSN: 0972-978X
Titre abrégé: J Orthop
Pays: India
ID NLM: 101233220
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Sep 2023
Sep 2023
Historique:
received:
12
07
2023
accepted:
16
07
2023
pmc-release:
01
09
2024
medline:
11
8
2023
pubmed:
11
8
2023
entrez:
11
8
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Although many institutions utilize uncemented stems as routine in performing total hip arthroplasty (THA), many surgeons continue to rely on outcomes reported in the literature in the form of small cohorts and patient series when analyzing survivorship for specific implants. The purpose of this study was to identify and analyze the survivorship of the 3 most common uncemented stem types (as opposed to brands) used across multiple national joint registries. A review of data available from all national joint registries was carried out in July 2022. Analysis of each individual registry and classified uncemented implants into the seven different uncemented stem types. The 3 most common stem types were identified, and average cumulative revision rates calculated. Metal on metal bearings surface implants were excluded from this study due to high revision rates across all implant types. Our detailed review identified 6 out of 13 (NJR, AOANJRR, LROI, EPRD, MARCQI and the NZJR) international registries reporting implant specific survivorship on uncemented femoral stems; including 960,328 uncemented stems across all registries. The most common type of stem used was type 3c, accounting for 61% (583,724), followed by type 1 stems with 23% (217,897) and type 2 stems with 8% (79,257). Cumulative revision rates at 13 years follow-up for these stems ranged from 6.9% to 7.9%. Although all stem types have comparable revision rates across all registries, the most common uncemented stem reported was the type 3c, tapered rectangular fully coated stem. Furthermore, out of all type 3c, the Müller design philosophy with full hydroxyapatite coating seems to be the most sought after worldwide. In this study we can conclude, thus far, that there does not appear to clinical or statistical differences in revision rates between the different stem types III.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Although many institutions utilize uncemented stems as routine in performing total hip arthroplasty (THA), many surgeons continue to rely on outcomes reported in the literature in the form of small cohorts and patient series when analyzing survivorship for specific implants. The purpose of this study was to identify and analyze the survivorship of the 3 most common uncemented stem types (as opposed to brands) used across multiple national joint registries.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
A review of data available from all national joint registries was carried out in July 2022. Analysis of each individual registry and classified uncemented implants into the seven different uncemented stem types. The 3 most common stem types were identified, and average cumulative revision rates calculated. Metal on metal bearings surface implants were excluded from this study due to high revision rates across all implant types.
Results
UNASSIGNED
Our detailed review identified 6 out of 13 (NJR, AOANJRR, LROI, EPRD, MARCQI and the NZJR) international registries reporting implant specific survivorship on uncemented femoral stems; including 960,328 uncemented stems across all registries. The most common type of stem used was type 3c, accounting for 61% (583,724), followed by type 1 stems with 23% (217,897) and type 2 stems with 8% (79,257). Cumulative revision rates at 13 years follow-up for these stems ranged from 6.9% to 7.9%.
Conclusion
UNASSIGNED
Although all stem types have comparable revision rates across all registries, the most common uncemented stem reported was the type 3c, tapered rectangular fully coated stem. Furthermore, out of all type 3c, the Müller design philosophy with full hydroxyapatite coating seems to be the most sought after worldwide. In this study we can conclude, thus far, that there does not appear to clinical or statistical differences in revision rates between the different stem types
Level of evidence
UNASSIGNED
III.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37564704
doi: 10.1016/j.jor.2023.07.010
pii: S0972-978X(23)00157-5
pmc: PMC10409998
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Pagination
41-47Informations de copyright
© 2023 Professor P K Surendran Memorial Education Foundation. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Références
J Arthroplasty. 2000 Apr;15(3):274-82
pubmed: 10794221
EFORT Open Rev. 2018 May 9;3(5):149-159
pubmed: 29951251
J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2019 May-Aug;27(2):2309499019854156
pubmed: 31181993
Int Orthop. 2012 Oct;36(10):2055-9
pubmed: 22864458
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013 Oct;471(10):3262-9
pubmed: 23670671
J Arthroplasty. 2019 Dec;34(12):2992-2998
pubmed: 31447254
JAMA. 1990 Mar 9;263(10):1385-9
pubmed: 2406472
J Arthroplasty. 2018 Feb;33(2):482-490
pubmed: 29066107
J Arthroplasty. 2015 Jun;30(6):1014-8
pubmed: 25677937
NI 2012 (2012). 2012 Jun 23;2012:391
pubmed: 24199127
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003 Jul;(412):45-53
pubmed: 12838051
Int Orthop. 2011 Feb;35(2):157-63
pubmed: 20922385
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014 Oct 15;96(20):1742-52
pubmed: 25320202
EFORT Open Rev. 2018 Feb 26;3(2):45-57
pubmed: 29657845
Bone Joint J. 2015 Feb;97-B(2):160-3
pubmed: 25628276
Arthroplast Today. 2020 Aug 30;6(4):747-748
pubmed: 32923562
Hip Int. 2011 Jul-Aug;21(4):415-20
pubmed: 21818741
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007 Mar;89(3):608-13
pubmed: 17332110
Orthop Surg. 2019 Jun;11(3):460-466
pubmed: 31243926
J Orthop. 2017 Nov 06;15(1):18-23
pubmed: 29187778
Z Orthop Unfall. 2013 Jun;151(3):231-8
pubmed: 23696163
J Arthroplasty. 2016 Aug;31(8):1767-72
pubmed: 27017202
Acta Orthop. 2011 Apr;82(2):143-8
pubmed: 21463220
J Arthroplasty. 2009 Sep;24(6):846-53
pubmed: 18789635
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003 Oct;(415):293-301
pubmed: 14612659
Hip Int. 2017 Sep 19;27(5):465-471
pubmed: 28574121
Bone Joint J. 2014 Apr;96-B(4):455-61
pubmed: 24692610
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011 Mar 2;93(5):500-9
pubmed: 21368083
J Arthroplasty. 2004 Feb;19(2):151-6
pubmed: 14973856
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006 Oct;88(10):2210-5
pubmed: 17015598
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009 Jan;467(1):146-54
pubmed: 18975042
Bone Joint J. 2014 Jun;96-B(6):730-6
pubmed: 24891571