TY - JOUR
T1 - Outcome of revised metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties
T2 - a Dutch arthroplasty register study
AU - Jelsma, Jetse
AU - van Kuijk, S. M.J.
AU - Spekenbrink-Spooren, A.
AU - Grimm, B.
AU - Heyligers, I. C.
AU - Schotanus, M. G.M.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2021, The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
PY - 2022/12
Y1 - 2022/12
N2 - Background: Preliminary results of metal-on-metal (MoM) hip arthroplasty were satisfactory, but since 2004 data showed high failure rates. National joint replacement registries are multi-centre databases comprised of thousands of subjects and implants which allow for identifying variables predictive of implant failure. The aim of the current study was to estimate re-revision rates after revision of a primary MoM hip arthroplasty in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI) and to assess potential predictor variables of re-revision of these MoM hip arthroplasties. Methods: Eligible procedures were those with a revision for any reason except infection, after an initial primary surgery with a hip resurfacing (HRA) or large-head MoM (LH-MoM) total hip arthroplasty (THA). The probability of re-revision for both types of MoM hip arthroplasty over time was estimated using the cumulative incidence function taking mortality as a competing risk into account. A proportional sub-distribution hazards regression model was used to assess potential predictor variables of re-revision of these MoM hip arthroplasties. Results: A total of 3476 records of revised implants were included, of which 873 (25.2%) were MoM implants. Over the course of follow-up, 101 (11.5%) MoM implants were re-revised. During follow-up 36 (4.3%) patients who received a MoM-implant at primary arthroplasty and a revision afterwards had died. The regression model showed that for primary MoM implants a MoM articulation after revision (HR 2.48; 95% CI 1.53–4.03, p < 0.001), femoral-only revisions (HR 3.20; 95% CI 2.06–4.99, p < 0.001) and periprosthetic fractures (HR 1.98; 95% CI 1.03–3.82, p = 0.042) as reason for the first revision were statistically significant risk factors for re-revision. Conclusion: Both types of large-head MoM hip arthroplasties have shown high revision and re-revision rates; risk factors were identified. The outcome of this study can be helpful in managing expectations of patients and orthopaedic surgeons.
AB - Background: Preliminary results of metal-on-metal (MoM) hip arthroplasty were satisfactory, but since 2004 data showed high failure rates. National joint replacement registries are multi-centre databases comprised of thousands of subjects and implants which allow for identifying variables predictive of implant failure. The aim of the current study was to estimate re-revision rates after revision of a primary MoM hip arthroplasty in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI) and to assess potential predictor variables of re-revision of these MoM hip arthroplasties. Methods: Eligible procedures were those with a revision for any reason except infection, after an initial primary surgery with a hip resurfacing (HRA) or large-head MoM (LH-MoM) total hip arthroplasty (THA). The probability of re-revision for both types of MoM hip arthroplasty over time was estimated using the cumulative incidence function taking mortality as a competing risk into account. A proportional sub-distribution hazards regression model was used to assess potential predictor variables of re-revision of these MoM hip arthroplasties. Results: A total of 3476 records of revised implants were included, of which 873 (25.2%) were MoM implants. Over the course of follow-up, 101 (11.5%) MoM implants were re-revised. During follow-up 36 (4.3%) patients who received a MoM-implant at primary arthroplasty and a revision afterwards had died. The regression model showed that for primary MoM implants a MoM articulation after revision (HR 2.48; 95% CI 1.53–4.03, p < 0.001), femoral-only revisions (HR 3.20; 95% CI 2.06–4.99, p < 0.001) and periprosthetic fractures (HR 1.98; 95% CI 1.03–3.82, p = 0.042) as reason for the first revision were statistically significant risk factors for re-revision. Conclusion: Both types of large-head MoM hip arthroplasties have shown high revision and re-revision rates; risk factors were identified. The outcome of this study can be helpful in managing expectations of patients and orthopaedic surgeons.
KW - Hip arthroplasty
KW - Metal-on-metal
KW - Re-revision rates
KW - Registry
KW - Revision arthroplasty
KW - Survival
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85120354135&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34846589
U2 - 10.1007/s00402-021-04257-5
DO - 10.1007/s00402-021-04257-5
M3 - Article
C2 - 34846589
AN - SCOPUS:85120354135
SN - 0936-8051
VL - 142
SP - 4025
EP - 4032
JO - Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery
JF - Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery
IS - 12
ER -