Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre, Oxford, United Kingdom; MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, Southampton General Hospital, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom; Musculoskeletal Research Unit, University of Bristol School of Clinical Sciences, Bristol, United Kingdom.
J Arthroplasty. 2018 Feb;33(2):447-452. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2017.08.036. Epub 2017 Sep 5.
Trabecular metal (TM)-coated acetabular components are increasingly used in both primary and revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). However, previous studies assessing TM acetabular components have been small single-center cohorts with most lacking a control group. We compared revision rates following primary THA between TM and non-TM-coated acetabular components.
A retrospective observational study was performed using National Joint Registry data, which included primary THAs with the same cementless acetabular component (either TM or non-TM coated). TM and non-TM implants were matched for multiple potential confounding factors using propensity scores. Outcomes following primary THA (revision for all-cause acetabular indications, aseptic acetabular loosening, and infection) were compared between matched groups using competing risk regression analysis.
In 18,200 primary THAs (9100 TM and 9100 non-TM), the overall prevalence of acetabular revision, revision for aseptic acetabular loosening, and septic revision was 1.2%, 0.13%, and 0.59% respectively. Five-year revision rates for all-causes (1.0% vs 1.8%, sub-hazard ratio [SHR] 0.57, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.43-0.76, P < .001), aseptic acetabular loosening (0.1% vs 0.2%, SHR 0.35, 95% CI 0.14-0.90, P = .029), and infection (0.5% vs 0.9%, SHR 0.51, 95% CI 0.34-0.76, P = .001) were all lower in TM compared with non-TM implants.
Following primary THA, TM-coated acetabular implants had a reduced risk of both aseptic and septic revision compared with non-TM implants. Although absolute differences in revision risk were small, they may be clinically significant if TM designs were implanted in more complex cases.
在初次全髋关节置换术(THA)和翻修 THA 中,越来越多地使用小梁金属(TM)涂层髋臼部件。然而,以前评估 TM 髋臼部件的研究规模较小,且均为单中心队列研究,大多数研究缺乏对照组。我们比较了 TM 涂层和非 TM 涂层髋臼部件初次 THA 后的翻修率。
本研究使用国家关节登记处的数据进行回顾性观察性研究,包括使用相同非骨水泥髋臼部件(TM 或非 TM 涂层)的初次 THA。使用倾向评分对 TM 和非 TM 植入物进行了多种潜在混杂因素的匹配。使用竞争风险回归分析比较匹配组之间初次 THA 后的结果(所有原因髋臼指征、无菌性髋臼松动和感染的翻修)。
在 18200 例初次 THA 中(TM 组 9100 例,非 TM 组 9100 例),髋臼翻修的总体发生率、无菌性髋臼松动翻修率和感染性翻修率分别为 1.2%、0.13%和 0.59%。5 年时所有原因的翻修率(1.0%比 1.8%,亚危险比 [SHR] 0.57,95%置信区间 [CI] 0.43-0.76,P <.001)、无菌性髋臼松动的翻修率(0.1%比 0.2%,SHR 0.35,95% CI 0.14-0.90,P =.029)和感染的翻修率(0.5%比 0.9%,SHR 0.51,95% CI 0.34-0.76,P =.001)均低于 TM 组。
与非 TM 植入物相比,初次 THA 后 TM 涂层髋臼植入物的无菌性和感染性翻修风险降低。尽管翻修风险的绝对差异较小,但如果 TM 设计应用于更复杂的病例,可能具有临床意义。