1 / 22

RESULTS: Cup; Aseptic loosening:

diem
Download Presentation

RESULTS: Cup; Aseptic loosening:

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Survival of total hip arthroplasty (THA) in younger patientsEffect of hydroxyapatite coating and cementAksel Paulsen, Søren P. Johnsen, Alma B. Pedersen, Ulf Lucht, Søren OvergaardDepartment of Orthopedics, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark.Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark.Department of Orthopedics, Odense University Hospital, Denmark.University of Southern Denmark, SDU, Denmark

  2. INTRODUCTION:Hydroxyapatite (HA) coating of uncemented THA is widely used; however, the effect of HA on implant survival are sparse. AIM:1. What is the effect of HA coating on the survival of uncemented THA, compared to non HA coating, in cups and stems? 2. What is the effect compared to cemented THA?

  3. MATERIAL:This review is a cohort analysis based on the Danish Hip Arthroplasty Registry (DHR).We identified all primary THA in patients less than 70 years during 1995-2003. The follow-up was 0-9 years.

  4. MATERIAL:Available for analyses: Cups : A total of 23,516; 8,556 cemented 3,151 uncemented, HA-coated 11,809 uncemented, non-HA-coatedStems: A total of 23,434; 15,634 cemented 2,318 uncemented, HA-coated 5,482 uncemented, non-HA-coated.

  5. METHODS: We defined revision of the components as endpoint, divided into two different outcomes; revision because of aseptic loosening, and revision due to ”any reason”Revision and ”any reason” was defined in accordance to the DHR registration form.

  6. METHODS: The relative risk (RR) of revision due to aseptic loosening or “any reason”, was adjusted for possible confounders using multivariate Cox regression analysis.The analyzes were adjusted for: age (< 50, 50-59, 60-69), gender, primary diagnosis, and fixation of the opposite implant part (Cup /Stem).

  7. METHODS: Statistical analyzes: age (<60, 60-69), gender, producer/ model of the components, diagnosis (primary arthrosis/ “all diagnosis”). None of the groups had less than 400 patients.The software we used was SAS. Statistician Anders Riis was of technical assistance in the formulation of the statistical analysis.Statistical level of significance was set to 5 %.

  8. RESULTS: Cups; HA-coating VS. non HA-coating (all diagnosis) Adjusted RRs of revision; Endpoint: aseptic loosening;

  9. RESULTS: Cups; HA-coating VS. non HA-coating (all diagnosis) Adjusted RRs of revision; Endpoint: aseptic loosening;Endpoint: any reason;Same findings for: idiopathic arthrosis, age, gender, component type

  10. RESULTS: Cups; Cemented VS. Uncemented (all diagnosis) Adjusted RRs of revision; Endpoint: aseptic loosening;

  11. RESULTS: Cups; Cemented VS. Uncemented (all diagnosis) Adjusted RRs of revision; Endpoint: aseptic loosening;Endpoint: any reason;Same findings for: idiopathic arthrosis, age, gender, component type

  12. RESULTS: Cup; Aseptic loosening:

  13. RESULTS: Cup; Any reason:

  14. RESULTS: Stems; HA-coating VS. non HA-coating (all diagnosis) Adjusted RRs of revision; Endpoint: aseptic loosening;

  15. RESULTS: Stems; HA-coating VS. non HA-coating (all diagnosis) Adjusted RRs of revision; Endpoint: aseptic loosening;Endpoint: any reason;Same findings for: idiopathic arthrosis, age, gender, component type

  16. RESULTS: Stems; Cemented VS. Uncemented (all diagnosis) Adjusted RRs of revision; Endpoint: aseptic loosening;

  17. RESULTS: Stems; Cemented VS. Uncemented (all diagnosis) Adjusted RRs of revision; Endpoint: aseptic loosening;Endpoint: any reason;Same findings for: idiopathic arthrosis, age, gender, component type

  18. RESULTS: Stem; Aseptic loosening:

  19. RESULTS: Stem; Any reason:

  20. CONCLUSION:Use of HA-coated implants was not associated with any overall reduced risk of revision compared with uncoated implants, in this medium term follow-up study of younger patients (<70).

  21. CONCLUSION:Use of HA-coated implants was not associated with any overall reduced risk of revision compared with uncoated implants, in this medium term follow-up study of younger patients (<70).Cemented implants as a group had higher revision rates due to aseptic loosening than cementless implants, but not unambiguously higher revision rates due to “any reason” than cementless implants in this study.

  22. CONCLUSION:Use of HA-coated implants was not associated with any overall reduced risk of revision compared with uncoated implants, in this medium term follow-up study of younger patients (<70).Cemented implants as a group had higher revision rates due to aseptic loosening than cementless implants, but not unambiguously higher revision rates due to “any reason” than cementless implants in this study.Müller, Exeter, and Charnley cups had the highest revision rates of the cups. Bi-metric Cemented, Charnley and Lubinus SP II stems had the highest revision rates for stems in this medium term follow-up study of younger patients (<70).

More Related