S S Jameson, P N Baker, J Mason, P J Gregg, N Brewster, D J Deehan, M R Reed
{"title":"髋臼假体的设计和股骨头的大小影响34721例单品牌骨水泥髋关节置换术后翻修的风险:一项来自国家关节登记处中期数据的回顾性队列研究。","authors":"S S Jameson, P N Baker, J Mason, P J Gregg, N Brewster, D J Deehan, M R Reed","doi":"10.1302/0301-620X.94B12.30040","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Despite excellent results, the use of cemented total hip replacement (THR) is declining. This retrospective cohort study records survival time to revision following primary cemented THR using the most common combination of components that accounted for almost a quarter of all cemented THRs, exploring risk factors independently associated with failure. All patients with osteoarthritis who had an Exeter V40/Contemporary THR (Stryker) implanted before 31 December 2010 and recorded in the National Joint Registry for England and Wales were included in the analysis. Cox's proportional hazard models were used to analyse the extent to which risk of revision was related to patient, surgeon and implant covariates, with a significance threshold of p < 0.01. A total of 34 721 THRs were included in the study. The overall seven-year rate of revision for any reason was 1.70% (99% confidence interval (CI) 1.28 to 2.12). In the final adjusted model the risk of revision was significantly higher in THRs with the Contemporary hooded component (hazard ratio (HR) 1.88, p < 0.001) than with the flanged version, and in smaller head sizes (< 28 mm) compared with 28 mm diameter heads (HR 1.50, p = 0.005). The seven-year revision rate was 1.16% (99% CI 0.69 to 1.63) with a 28 mm diameter head and flanged component. The overall risk of revision was independent of age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, body mass index, surgeon volume, surgical approach, brand of cement/presence of antibiotic, femoral head material (stainless steel/alumina) and stem taper size/offset. However, the risk of revision for dislocation was significantly higher with a 'plus' offset head (HR 2.05, p = 0.003) and a hooded acetabular component (HR 2.34, p < 0.001). In summary, we found that there were significant differences in failure between different designs of acetabular component and sizes of femoral head after adjustment for a range of covariates.</p>","PeriodicalId":15048,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-british Volume","volume":"94 12","pages":"1611-7"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1302/0301-620X.94B12.30040","citationCount":"33","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The design of the acetabular component and size of the femoral head influence the risk of revision following 34 721 single-brand cemented hip replacements: a retrospective cohort study of medium-term data from a National Joint Registry.\",\"authors\":\"S S Jameson, P N Baker, J Mason, P J Gregg, N Brewster, D J Deehan, M R Reed\",\"doi\":\"10.1302/0301-620X.94B12.30040\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Despite excellent results, the use of cemented total hip replacement (THR) is declining. This retrospective cohort study records survival time to revision following primary cemented THR using the most common combination of components that accounted for almost a quarter of all cemented THRs, exploring risk factors independently associated with failure. All patients with osteoarthritis who had an Exeter V40/Contemporary THR (Stryker) implanted before 31 December 2010 and recorded in the National Joint Registry for England and Wales were included in the analysis. Cox's proportional hazard models were used to analyse the extent to which risk of revision was related to patient, surgeon and implant covariates, with a significance threshold of p < 0.01. A total of 34 721 THRs were included in the study. The overall seven-year rate of revision for any reason was 1.70% (99% confidence interval (CI) 1.28 to 2.12). In the final adjusted model the risk of revision was significantly higher in THRs with the Contemporary hooded component (hazard ratio (HR) 1.88, p < 0.001) than with the flanged version, and in smaller head sizes (< 28 mm) compared with 28 mm diameter heads (HR 1.50, p = 0.005). The seven-year revision rate was 1.16% (99% CI 0.69 to 1.63) with a 28 mm diameter head and flanged component. The overall risk of revision was independent of age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, body mass index, surgeon volume, surgical approach, brand of cement/presence of antibiotic, femoral head material (stainless steel/alumina) and stem taper size/offset. However, the risk of revision for dislocation was significantly higher with a 'plus' offset head (HR 2.05, p = 0.003) and a hooded acetabular component (HR 2.34, p < 0.001). In summary, we found that there were significant differences in failure between different designs of acetabular component and sizes of femoral head after adjustment for a range of covariates.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15048,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-british Volume\",\"volume\":\"94 12\",\"pages\":\"1611-7\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2012-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1302/0301-620X.94B12.30040\",\"citationCount\":\"33\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-british Volume\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.94B12.30040\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-british Volume","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.94B12.30040","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 33
摘要
尽管效果很好,但骨水泥全髋关节置换术(THR)的使用正在下降。这项回顾性队列研究记录了原发性骨水泥THR术后到翻修的生存时间,使用最常见的组件组合(占所有骨水泥THR的近四分之一),探索与失败相关的独立风险因素。所有在2010年12月31日前植入Exeter V40/Contemporary THR (Stryker)并记录在英格兰和威尔士国家联合登记处的骨关节炎患者都被纳入分析。采用Cox比例风险模型分析翻修风险与患者、外科医生和植入物协变量的相关程度,显著性阈值p < 0.01。研究共纳入34 721例THRs。总体七年修正率为1.70%(99%置信区间(CI) 1.28 - 2.12)。在最终调整后的模型中,采用当代罩式部件的thr的翻修风险(风险比(HR) 1.88, p < 0.001)明显高于带法兰盘的thr(风险比(HR) 1.50, p = 0.005),并且与28毫米直径的头部相比,较小的头部尺寸(< 28毫米)(风险比(HR) 1.50, p = 0.005)。对于28 mm直径的封头和法兰组件,7年翻修率为1.16% (99% CI 0.69至1.63)。翻修手术的总体风险与年龄、性别、美国麻醉医师学会分级、体重指数、外科医生体积、手术入路、水泥品牌/抗生素的存在、股骨头材料(不锈钢/氧化铝)和股骨头锥度大小/偏移量无关。然而,“正”偏位头(HR 2.05, p = 0.003)和带帽髋臼假体(HR 2.34, p < 0.001)复位脱位的风险明显更高。总之,我们发现在调整一系列协变量后,不同设计的髋臼假体和股骨头大小在失败方面存在显著差异。
The design of the acetabular component and size of the femoral head influence the risk of revision following 34 721 single-brand cemented hip replacements: a retrospective cohort study of medium-term data from a National Joint Registry.
Despite excellent results, the use of cemented total hip replacement (THR) is declining. This retrospective cohort study records survival time to revision following primary cemented THR using the most common combination of components that accounted for almost a quarter of all cemented THRs, exploring risk factors independently associated with failure. All patients with osteoarthritis who had an Exeter V40/Contemporary THR (Stryker) implanted before 31 December 2010 and recorded in the National Joint Registry for England and Wales were included in the analysis. Cox's proportional hazard models were used to analyse the extent to which risk of revision was related to patient, surgeon and implant covariates, with a significance threshold of p < 0.01. A total of 34 721 THRs were included in the study. The overall seven-year rate of revision for any reason was 1.70% (99% confidence interval (CI) 1.28 to 2.12). In the final adjusted model the risk of revision was significantly higher in THRs with the Contemporary hooded component (hazard ratio (HR) 1.88, p < 0.001) than with the flanged version, and in smaller head sizes (< 28 mm) compared with 28 mm diameter heads (HR 1.50, p = 0.005). The seven-year revision rate was 1.16% (99% CI 0.69 to 1.63) with a 28 mm diameter head and flanged component. The overall risk of revision was independent of age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, body mass index, surgeon volume, surgical approach, brand of cement/presence of antibiotic, femoral head material (stainless steel/alumina) and stem taper size/offset. However, the risk of revision for dislocation was significantly higher with a 'plus' offset head (HR 2.05, p = 0.003) and a hooded acetabular component (HR 2.34, p < 0.001). In summary, we found that there were significant differences in failure between different designs of acetabular component and sizes of femoral head after adjustment for a range of covariates.