Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Single Wedge Femoral Stem Designs are Associated With a Higher Risk for Revision After Cementless Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty.
Reddy, Nithin C; Chang, Richard N; Prentice, Heather A; Paxton, Elizabeth W; Kelly, Matthew P; Khatod, Monti.
Afiliación
  • Reddy NC; Department of Orthopaedics, Southern California Permanente Medical Group, San Diego, California.
  • Chang RN; Medical Device Surveillance and Assessment, Kaiser Permanente, San Diego, California.
  • Prentice HA; Medical Device Surveillance and Assessment, Kaiser Permanente, San Diego, California.
  • Paxton EW; Medical Device Surveillance and Assessment, Kaiser Permanente, San Diego, California.
  • Kelly MP; Department of Orthopaedics, Southern California Permanente Medical Group, South Bay, California.
  • Khatod M; Department of Orthopaedics, Southern California Permanente Medical Group, West Los Angeles, California.
J Arthroplasty ; 38(5): 855-861.e1, 2023 05.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36535447
BACKGROUND: Cementless total hip arthroplasty (THA) femoral stems are the most commonly selected prostheses in the United States. Optimal stem geometry remains controversial with excellent survivorship reported for many designs. We compared cause-specific stem revision of single-wedge versus double-wedge designs from a multicenter US cohort. METHODS: Data from an integrated healthcare network's total joint replacement registry were used to conduct a cohort study. Primary elective cementless THAs were identified (2001 to 2018). Implant exposure groups were classified by design geometry using the system proposed by Khanuja et al. Type 1 single-wedge (n = 11,082) and type 2 double-wedge (n = 32,380) designs were compared, and other design types were excluded; the final study cohort comprised 43,462 THAs. Cause-specific multivariable Cox regressions were used to evaluate risk for revision due to infection or aseptic reasons, including loosening, instability, periprosthetic fracture, or other reasons. RESULTS: After adjustment for covariates, a higher aseptic revision risk was observed for type 1 when compared to type 2 designs (hazard ratio = 1.91, 95% confidence interval = 1.33-2.75). When looking at specific revision reasons, revision for aseptic loosening (hazard ratio = 3.46, 95% confidence interval = 2.24-5.34) was higher for type 1 versus type 2 designs. No differences were found for septic revision, instability, periprosthetic fracture, or revisions for other reasons. CONCLUSIONS: Type 1 single-wedge designs were found to have a higher risk of revision due to aseptic loosening relative to type 2 double-wedge designs. Femoral stem geometry should be considered when selecting a cementless femoral implant. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Artroplastia de Reemplazo de Cadera / Fracturas Periprotésicas / Prótesis de Cadera Tipo de estudio: Clinical_trials / Etiology_studies / Observational_studies / Risk_factors_studies Límite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: J Arthroplasty Asunto de la revista: ORTOPEDIA Año: 2023 Tipo del documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Artroplastia de Reemplazo de Cadera / Fracturas Periprotésicas / Prótesis de Cadera Tipo de estudio: Clinical_trials / Etiology_studies / Observational_studies / Risk_factors_studies Límite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: J Arthroplasty Asunto de la revista: ORTOPEDIA Año: 2023 Tipo del documento: Article