Näytä suppeat kuvailutiedot

Is there a reduction in risk of revision when 36-mm heads instead of 32 mm are used in total hip arthroplasty for patients with proximal femur fractures?: A matched analysis of 5,030 patients with a median of 2.5 years’ follow-up between 2006 and 2016 in the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association

Antti Eskelinen; Søren Overgaard; Geir Hallan; Johan N Kärrholm; Georgios Tsikandylakis; Ove Furnes; Alma B Pedersen; Maziar Mohaddes; Keijo Mäkelä

dc.contributor.authorAntti Eskelinen
dc.contributor.authorSøren Overgaard
dc.contributor.authorGeir Hallan
dc.contributor.authorJohan N Kärrholm
dc.contributor.authorGeorgios Tsikandylakis
dc.contributor.authorOve Furnes
dc.contributor.authorAlma B Pedersen
dc.contributor.authorMaziar Mohaddes
dc.contributor.authorKeijo Mäkelä
dc.date.accessioned2022-10-27T12:17:20Z
dc.date.available2022-10-27T12:17:20Z
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.utupub.fi/handle/10024/157573
dc.description.abstract<p>Background and purpose — 32-mm heads are widely used in total hip arthroplasty (THA) in Scandinavia, while the proportion of 36-mm heads is increasing as they are expected to increase THA stability. We investigated whether the use of 36-mm heads in THA after proximal femur fracture (PFF) is associated with a lower risk of revision compared with 32-mm heads.</p><p><br /></p><p>Patients and methods — We included 5,030 patients operated with THA due to PFF with 32- or 36-mm heads from the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association database. Each patient with a 36-mm head was matched with a patient with a 32-mm head, using propensity score. The patients were operated between 2006 and 2016, with a metal or ceramic head on a polyethylene bearing. Cox proportional hazards models were fitted to estimate the unadjusted and adjusted hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for revision for any reason and revision due to dislocation for 36-mm heads compared with 32-mm heads.</p><p><br /></p><p>Results — 36-mm heads had an HR of 0.9 (CI 0.7–1.2) for revision for any reason and 0.8 (CI 0.5–1.3) for revision due to dislocation compared with 32-mm heads at a median follow-up of 2.5 years (interquartile range 1–4.4).</p><p><br /></p><p>Interpretation — We were not able to demonstrate any clinically relevant reduction of the risk of THA revision for any reason or due to dislocation when 36-mm heads were used versus 32-mm. Residual confounding due to lack of data on patient comorbidities and body mass index could bias our results.</p><p><br /></p><p>During the past years total hip arthroplasty (THA) has become the preferred treatment option for displaced femoral neck fractures in even younger (55–64 years) patients (Rogmark et al. 2017). Previous studies have shown an increased risk of revision, especially due to dislocation, in patients receiving THA after proximal femur fracture (PFF) compared with patients operated due to primary osteoarthritis (OA) (Conroy et al. 2008, Hailer et al. 2012). The risk of THA dislocation in fracture patients varies widely from as low as 5% (Tabori-Jensen et al. 2019), especially when dual mobility cups (DMCs) are used, up to 6–18% (Burgers et al. 2012, Johansson 2014, Noticewala et al. 2018) with conventional cups. The risk of THA revision due to dislocation has been reported as even lower, ranging from 0.5 to 0.7% in national register studies (Conroy et al. 2008, Hailer et al. 2012), as not all unstable THAs are revised. According to the above-mentioned studies, increased age, male sex, the use of a posterior approach, and smaller head sizes are associated with increased risk of revision due to dislocation. To counteract the risk of dislocation, bigger head sizes have been used as they increase the impingement-free range of motion (Burroughs et al. 2005, Tsuda et al. 2016) and jumping distance of THA (Sariali et al. 2009). During the past years, the use of larger heads in THA has increased with 28-mm continuously declining and 32- and 36-mm increasing (Tsikandylakis et al. 2018b). However, register studies performed on patients with displaced femoral neck fracture (Jameson et al. 2012, Cebatorius et al. 2015) have not demonstrated any superiority of larger heads over smaller ones regarding risk of revision, especially due to dislocation. This effect has only been demonstrated in studies performed on a case mix of hip diagnoses that have reported an increased risk of revision due to dislocation when 28-mm or smaller heads are used compared with 32-mm or larger heads (Hailer et al. 2012, Kostensalo et al. 2013).</p><p><br /></p><p>Most of the above-mentioned register studies have used 28-mm heads as reference, which are rarely used nowadays (Tsikandylakis et al. 2018b). Patients receiving THA after PFF have a higher risk for revision than patients with OA and should preferably be studied separately, setting 32 mm as contemporary standard of reference. We therefore investigated if increasing head size from 32 to 36 mm is associated with a decreased risk of revision, especially due to dislocation, in patients with PFF in the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA) database. We hypothesized that the risk is lower when 36-mm heads ar</p><p><br /></p>
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherTaylor and Francis Ltd
dc.titleIs there a reduction in risk of revision when 36-mm heads instead of 32 mm are used in total hip arthroplasty for patients with proximal femur fractures?: A matched analysis of 5,030 patients with a median of 2.5 years’ follow-up between 2006 and 2016 in the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association
dc.identifier.urnURN:NBN:fi-fe2021042822998
dc.relation.volume91
dc.contributor.organizationfi=tyks, vsshp|en=tyks, vsshp|
dc.contributor.organizationfi=ortopedia ja traumatologia|en=Orthopaedics and Traumatology|
dc.contributor.organization-code2607310
dc.converis.publication-id47780807
dc.converis.urlhttps://research.utu.fi/converis/portal/Publication/47780807
dc.identifier.eissn1745-3674
dc.identifier.jour-issn1745-3674
dc.okm.affiliatedauthorDataimport, tyks, vsshp
dc.okm.affiliatedauthorMäkelä, Keijo
dc.okm.discipline3126 Surgery, anesthesiology, intensive care, radiologyen_GB
dc.okm.discipline3126 Kirurgia, anestesiologia, tehohoito, radiologiafi_FI
dc.okm.internationalcopublicationinternational co-publication
dc.okm.internationalityInternational publication
dc.okm.typeJournal article
dc.publisher.countryUnited Kingdomen_GB
dc.publisher.countryBritanniafi_FI
dc.publisher.country-codeGB
dc.relation.doi10.1080/17453674.2020.1752559
dc.relation.ispartofjournalActa Orthopaedica
dc.relation.issue4
dc.year.issued2020


Aineistoon kuuluvat tiedostot

Thumbnail

Aineisto kuuluu seuraaviin kokoelmiin

Näytä suppeat kuvailutiedot