JOURNAL ARTICLE

High early failure rate after cementless hip replacement in the octogenarian

Esa Jämsen, Antti Eskelinen, Mikko Peltola, Keijo Mäkelä
Clinical Orthopaedics and related Research 2014, 472 (9): 2779-89
24771260

BACKGROUND: Use of cementless hip replacements is increasing in many countries, but the best method for fixation for octogenarian patients remains unknown.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We studied how fixation method (cemented, cementless, hybrid) affects the survival of primary hip replacements and mortality in patients 80 years or older. Specifically, we asked if fixation method affects (1) the risk of revision; (2) the reasons for revision; and (3) the mortality after contemporary primary hip replacement in octogenarian patients.

METHODS: A total of 4777 primary total hip replacements were performed in 4509 octogenarian patients with primary osteoarthritis in Finland between 1998 and 2009 and were registered in the Finnish Arthroplasty Register. Comorbidity data were collected from a nationwide quality register. Survival of hip replacements, using any revision as the end point, and mortality were analyzed using competing risks survival analysis and Cox regression analysis. The average followup was 4 years (range, 1-13 years).

RESULTS: Cementless hip replacements were associated with a higher rate of early (within 1 year) revision compared with cemented hip replacements (hazard ratio, 2.9; 95% CI, 1.7-5.1), particularly in women. The difference was not explained by comorbidity or provider-related factors. Periprosthetic fracture was the leading mode of failure of cementless hip replacements. After 1 year, there were no differences in the survival rates although 10-year survival was slightly lower for cementless than cemented and hybrid hip replacements (93.9% [95% CI, 91.1%-96.7%] versus 97.4% [95% CI, 96.9%-98.0%] and 98.1% [95% CI, 96.9%-99.4%], respectively). Fixation method was not associated with mortality.

CONCLUSIONS: Cementless fixation was associated with an increased risk of revision and did not provide any benefit in terms of lower mortality in octogenarian patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, therapeutic study. See the Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Full Text Links

Find Full Text Links for this Article

Discussion

You are not logged in. Sign Up or Log In to join the discussion.

Related Papers

Remove bar
Read by QxMD icon Read
24771260
×

Save your favorite articles in one place with a free QxMD account.

×

Search Tips

Use Boolean operators: AND/OR

diabetic AND foot
diabetes OR diabetic

Exclude a word using the 'minus' sign

Virchow -triad

Use Parentheses

water AND (cup OR glass)

Add an asterisk (*) at end of a word to include word stems

Neuro* will search for Neurology, Neuroscientist, Neurological, and so on

Use quotes to search for an exact phrase

"primary prevention of cancer"
(heart or cardiac or cardio*) AND arrest -"American Heart Association"