Centre for Hip Surgery, Wrightington Hospital, Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Foundation Trust, Wigan, UK.
Centre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Bone Joint J. 2021 Nov;103-B(11):1669-1677. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.103B11.BJJ-2021-0061.R1.
To determine if primary cemented acetabular component geometry (long posterior wall (LPW), hooded, or offset reorientating) influences the risk of revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) for instability or loosening.
The National Joint Registry (NJR) dataset was analyzed for primary THAs performed between 2003 and 2017. A cohort of 224,874 cemented acetabular components were included. The effect of acetabular component geometry on the risk of revision for instability or for loosening was investigated using log-binomial regression adjusting for age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, indication, side, institution type, operating surgeon grade, surgical approach, polyethylene crosslinking, and prosthetic head size. A competing risk survival analysis was performed with the competing risks being revision for other indications or death.
The distribution of acetabular component geometries was: LPW 81.2%; hooded 18.7%; and offset reorientating 0.1%. There were 3,313 (1.5%) revision THAs performed, of which 815 (0.4%) were for instability and 838 (0.4%) were for loosening. Compared to the LPW group, the adjusted subhazard ratio of revision for instability in the hooded group was 2.31 (p < 0.001) and 4.12 (p = 0.047) in the offset reorientating group. Likewise, the subhazard ratio of revision for loosening was 2.65 (p < 0.001) in the hooded group and 13.61 (p < 0.001) in the offset reorientating group. A time-varying subhazard ratio of revision for instability (hooded vs LPW) was found, being greatest within the first three months.
This registry-based study confirms a significantly higher risk of revision after cemented THA for instability and for loosening when a hooded or offset reorientating acetabular component is used, compared to a LPW component. Further research is required to clarify if certain patients benefit from the use of hooded or offset reorientating components, but we recommend caution when using such components in routine clinical practice. Cite this article: 2021;103-B(11):1669-1677.
确定初次骨水泥髋臼组件几何形状(长后壁(LPW)、帽状或偏心重定向)是否会影响不稳定或松动的初次全髋关节置换术(THA)的翻修风险。
对 2003 年至 2017 年期间进行的初次 THA 进行了国家关节登记处(NJR)数据集分析。纳入了 224874 个骨水泥髋臼组件的队列。使用对数二项式回归调整年龄、性别、美国麻醉医师协会分级、适应证、侧别、机构类型、手术医生分级、手术入路、聚乙烯交联和假体头大小,研究髋臼组件几何形状对不稳定或松动翻修风险的影响。采用竞争风险生存分析,竞争风险为其他适应证的翻修或死亡。
髋臼组件几何形状的分布为:LPW81.2%;帽状 18.7%;偏心重定向 0.1%。共进行了 3313 次(1.5%)翻修 THA,其中 815 次(0.4%)为不稳定,838 次(0.4%)为松动。与 LPW 组相比,帽状组不稳定翻修的调整亚危险比为 2.31(p < 0.001),偏心重定向组为 4.12(p = 0.047)。同样,松动翻修的亚危险比在帽状组为 2.65(p < 0.001),在偏心重定向组为 13.61(p < 0.001)。发现不稳定翻修的时间变化亚危险比(帽状与 LPW),在前三个月内最大。
这项基于登记的研究证实,与使用 LPW 髋臼组件相比,使用帽状或偏心重定向髋臼组件进行初次骨水泥 THA 后,不稳定和松动的翻修风险明显更高。需要进一步研究以明确某些患者是否受益于使用帽状或偏心重定向组件,但我们建议在常规临床实践中使用此类组件时要谨慎。