Paxton Elizabeth W, Inacio Maria C S, Namba Robert S, Love Rebecca, Kurtz Steven M
Surgical Outcomes and Analysis, Kaiser Permanente, 8954 Rio San Diego Drive, Suite 406, San Diego, CA, 92108, USA,
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015 Mar;473(3):1011-21. doi: 10.1007/s11999-014-4105-9.
Although studies have reported lower radiological wear in highly crosslinked polyethylene (HXLPE) versus conventional polyethylene in total hip arthroplasty (THA), there is limited clinical evidence on the risk of revision of these polyethylene THA bearing surfaces.
QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We asked: (1) Do primary THAs with a metal-on-conventional polyethylene bearing surface have a higher risk of revision (all-cause or aseptic) than metal-on-HXLPE? (2) Is the risk of revision (all-cause or aseptic) higher for conventional polyethylene versus HXLPE when the effect of femoral and acetabular components is controlled for in prosthesis-specific analyses?
The Kaiser Permanente's Total Joint Replacement Registry was used to identify metal-on-conventional polyethylene and metal-on-HXLPE primary THAs (N = 26,823) performed between April 2001 and December 2011. The registry has 95% voluntary participation and 8% were lost to followup during the 10-year study period. Endpoints of interest were all-cause and aseptic revisions. Descriptive statistics and marginal Cox regression models with propensity score adjustments were applied to compare risk of revision for metal-on-conventional polyethylene versus metal-on-HXLPE THAs and to evaluate two specific manufacturers' hip implant designs while controlling for femoral and acetabular components. Of the 26,823 THAs included in the study, 1815 (7%) were metal-on-conventional polyethylene and 25,008 (93%) were metal-on-HXLPE.
At 7 years followup, the cumulative incidence of revision was 5.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.4%-6.7%) for metal-on-conventional and 2.8% (95% CI, 2.6%-3.2%) for metal-on-HXLPE. There was a higher adjusted risk of all-cause (hazard ratio [HR], 1.75; 95% CI, 1.37-2.24; p < 0.001) and aseptic (HR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.46-2.50; p < 0.001) revisions among metal-on-conventional polyethylene bearing surface hips compared with metal-on-HXLPE. Results were similar within manufacturer hip designs with the same femoral and acetabular components. Conclusions Metal-on-conventional polyethylene THA bearing surfaces have a higher risk of revision compared with metal-on-HXLPE bearing surfaces. Clinicians should consider the use of HXLPE when using a polyethylene bearing in THA.
Level II, cohort study.
尽管研究报告称,在全髋关节置换术(THA)中,高交联聚乙烯(HXLPE)的放射学磨损低于传统聚乙烯,但关于这些聚乙烯THA关节面翻修风险的临床证据有限。
问题/目的:我们提出以下问题:(1)与金属对HXLPE相比,金属对传统聚乙烯关节面的初次THA翻修(全因或无菌性)风险是否更高?(2)在假体特异性分析中,控制股骨和髋臼组件的影响后,传统聚乙烯与HXLPE相比,翻修(全因或无菌性)风险是否更高?
利用凯撒医疗集团的全关节置换登记系统,识别出2001年4月至2011年12月期间进行的金属对传统聚乙烯和金属对HXLPE初次THA(N = 26,823)。该登记系统的自愿参与率为95%,在10年研究期间,8%的患者失访。感兴趣的终点是全因和无菌性翻修。应用描述性统计和倾向评分调整的边际Cox回归模型,比较金属对传统聚乙烯与金属对HXLPE THA的翻修风险,并在控制股骨和髋臼组件的同时,评估两个特定制造商的髋关节植入物设计。在纳入研究的26,823例THA中,1815例(7%)为金属对传统聚乙烯,25,008例(93%)为金属对HXLPE。
随访7年时,金属对传统聚乙烯的翻修累积发生率为5.4%(95%置信区间[CI],4.4%-6.7%),金属对HXLPE为2.8%(95%CI,2.6%-3.2%)。与金属对HXLPE相比,金属对传统聚乙烯关节面髋关节的全因翻修(风险比[HR],1.75;95%CI,1.37-2.24;p < 0.001)和无菌性翻修(HR,1.91;95%CI,1.46-2.50;p < 0.001)调整风险更高。在具有相同股骨和髋臼组件的制造商髋关节设计中,结果相似。结论与金属对HXLPE关节面相比,金属对传统聚乙烯THA关节面的翻修风险更高。临床医生在THA中使用聚乙烯关节面时应考虑使用HXLPE。
二级,队列研究。