The Royal Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK.
Institute of Inflammation and Ageing, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Bone Joint J. 2021 Sep;103-B(9):1479-1487. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.103B9.BJJ-2021-0365.R1.
The aim of our study was to investigate the effect of asymmetric crosslinked polyethylene liner use on the risk of revision of cementless and hybrid total hip arthroplasties (THAs).
We undertook a registry study combining the National Joint Registry dataset with polyethylene manufacturing characteristics as supplied by the manufacturers. The primary endpoint was revision for any reason. We performed further analyses on other reasons including instability, aseptic loosening, wear, and liner dissociation. The primary analytic approach was Cox proportional hazard regression.
A total of 213,146 THAs were included in the analysis. Overall, 2,997 revisions were recorded, 1,569 in THAs with a flat liner and 1,428 in THAs using an asymmetric liner. Flat liner THAs had a higher risk of revision for any reason than asymmetric liner THAs when implanted through a Hardinge/anterolateral approach (hazard ratio (HR) 1.169, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.022 to 1.337) and through a posterior approach (HR 1.122, 95% CI 1.108 to 1.346). There was no increased risk of revision for aseptic loosening when asymmetric liners were used for any surgical approach. A separate analysis of the three most frequently used crosslinked polyethylene liners was in agreement with this finding. When analyzing THAs with flat liners only, THAs implanted through a Hardinge/anterolateral approach were associated with a reduced risk of revision for instability compared to posterior approach THAs (HR 0.561 (95% CI 0.446 to 0.706)). When analyzing THAs with an asymmetric liner, there was no significant difference in the risk of revision for instability between the two approaches (HR 0.838 (95% CI 0.633 to 1.110)).
For THAs implanted through the posterior approach, the use of asymmetric liners reduces the risk of revision for instability and revision for any reason. In THAs implanted through a Hardinge/anterolateral approach, the use of an asymmetric liner was associated with a reduced risk of revision. The effect on revision for instability was less pronounced than in the posterior approach. Cite this article: 2021;103-B(9):1479-1487.
本研究旨在探讨使用非对称交联聚乙烯衬垫对非骨水泥型和混合全髋关节置换术(THA)翻修风险的影响。
我们进行了一项基于注册的研究,将国家关节登记数据集与制造商提供的聚乙烯制造特征相结合。主要终点是任何原因的翻修。我们对包括不稳定、无菌性松动、磨损和衬垫分离在内的其他原因进行了进一步分析。主要分析方法是 Cox 比例风险回归。
共纳入 213146 例 THA。总体而言,共记录了 2997 次翻修,其中 1569 次发生在使用平垫的 THA 中,1428 次发生在使用非对称垫的 THA 中。与使用非对称衬垫的 THA 相比,通过 Hardinge/前外侧入路(风险比(HR)1.169,95%置信区间(CI)1.022 至 1.337)和通过后入路植入的平垫 THA 有更高的任何原因翻修风险(HR 1.122,95%CI 1.108 至 1.346)。对于任何手术入路,使用非对称衬垫并不增加无菌性松动的翻修风险。对三种最常使用的交联聚乙烯衬垫的单独分析结果与这一发现一致。仅分析平垫 THA 时,与后入路 THA 相比,通过 Hardinge/前外侧入路植入的 THA 不稳定翻修风险降低(HR 0.561(95%CI 0.446 至 0.706))。对于使用非对称衬垫的 THA,两种入路之间不稳定翻修的风险无显著差异(HR 0.838(95%CI 0.633 至 1.110))。
对于通过后入路植入的 THA,使用非对称衬垫可降低不稳定和任何原因翻修的风险。在通过 Hardinge/前外侧入路植入的 THA 中,使用非对称衬垫与降低翻修风险相关。对不稳定翻修的影响不如后入路明显。 引用本文:2021;103-B(9):1479-1487.