Risk of Complication and Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty Among Medicare Patients with Different Bearing Surfaces

Background Isolated revision of the acetabular component in the setting of total hip arthroplasty has an increased risk of dislocation. With local soft tissue destruction frequently associated with failed metal-on-metal (MoM) bearings, it is presumed that acetabular revision of these hips will have even greater risk of complications. However, no study directly compares the complications of MoM with metal-on-polyethylene (MoP) acetabular revisions. Questions/purposes In the context of a large database analysis, we asked the following questions: (1) Are there differences in early medical or wound complications after isolated acetabular revision of MoM and MoP bearing surfaces? (2) Are there differences in the frequency of dislocation, deep infection, and rerevision based on the bearing surface of the original implant? Methods A review of the 100% Medicare database from 2005 to 2012 was performed using International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision and Current Procedural Terminology codes. We identified 451 patients with a MoM bearing and 628 patients with a MoP bearing who had an isolated acetabular revision and a minimum followup of 2 years. The incidence, odds ratios, and 95% confidence intervals for early medical or wound complications were calculated using a univariate analysis at 30 days with patient sex and age group-adjusted analysis for blood transfusion. The incidence, odds ratio, and 95% confidence intervals for dislocation, deep infection, and rerevision were calculated using a univariate analysis at 30 day, 90 days, 1 year, and 2 years using a subgroup analysis with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test to adjust for patient gender and age groups. Results There were no differences between the MoM and MoP isolated acetabular revisions in the incidence of 30-day local complications.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Another study using Medicare inpatient claims from 2005 to 2007 used these codes to compare the rates of complications after primary THA among different bearing surfaces [6]. In the present study, codes were searched so as to exclude the same code being counted more than once for the same patient.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Complications Are Not Increased With Acetabular Revision of Metal-on-metal Total Hip Arthroplasty

Penrose

Seyler

Wellman

et al. 2016

“…Dislocations were identified using a hospital utilization database using ICD-9-CM discharge diagnosis codes but as a result of the lack of laterality, specificity, and sometimes inaccuracies of ICD-9-CM codes, these events could potentially be inaccurate. However, we used the same algorithms used by large studies [7,24] using administrative data in an attempt to use a comparable way to ascertain the outcome so our estimations could be compared with others. Additionally, missing data was a limitation of our study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Anterior and Anterolateral Approaches for THA Are Associated With Lower Dislocation Risk Without Higher Revision Risk

Sheth

Cafri

Inacio

et al. 2015

190

Background Lack of consensus continues regarding the benefit of anteriorly based surgical approaches for primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the risk of aseptic revision, septic revision, and dislocations for various approaches used in primary THAs from a community-based healthcare organization. Questions/purposes (1) What is the incidence of aseptic revision, septic revision, and dislocation for primary THA in a large community-based healthcare organization? (2) Does the risk of aseptic revision, septic revision, and dislocation vary by THA surgical approach? Methods The Kaiser Permanente Total Joint Replacement Registry was used to identify primary THAs performed between April 1, 2001 and December 31, 2011. Endpoints were septic revisions, aseptic revisions, and dislocations. The exposure of interest was surgical approach (posterior, anterolateral, direct lateral, direct anterior). Patient, implant, surgeon, and hospital factors were evaluated as possible confounders. Survival analysis was performed with marginal multivariate Cox models. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are reported. A total of 42,438 primary THAs were available for analysis of revision outcomes and 22,237 for dislocation. Median followup was 3 years (interquartile range, 1-5 years). The registry's voluntary participation is 95%. The most commonly used approach was posterior (75%, N = 31,747) followed by anterolateral (10%, N = 4226), direct anterior (4%, N = 1851), and direct lateral (2%, N = 667). Results During the study period 785 hips (2%) were revised for aseptic reasons, 213 (0.5%) for septic reasons, and 276 (1%) experienced a dislocation. The revision rate per 100 years of observation was 0.54 for aseptic revisions, 0.15 for septic revisions, and 0.58 for dislocations. There were no differences in adjusted risk of revision (either septic or aseptic) across the different THA approaches. However, the anterolateral approach (adjusted HR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.13-0.63, p = 0.002) and direct anterior approach (adjusted HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.22-0.87, p = 0.017) had a lower risk of dislocation relative to the posterior approach. There were no differences in any of the outcomes when comparing the direct anterior approach with the anterolateral approach. Conclusions Anterior and anterolateral surgical approaches had the advantage of a lower risk of dislocation without increasing the risk of early revision. Level of Evidence Level III, therapeutic study.

“…Recent studies have attempted to summarize the causes and epidemiology of revision procedures [5,6,39] and what can be done to minimize clinical and radiographic failures [34,35]. One aspect where surgeons and patients may differ, however, lies in the difference between a patient's and surgeon's definition of a successful procedure.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do We Need Gender-specific Total Joint Arthroplasty?

Johnson

Costa

Mont

2011

Background Gender-specific differences in knee and hip anatomy have been well documented. Although it has been accepted these differences exist, there is controversy regarding if and how these differences should be addressed with gender-specific implant designs. Questions/purposes (1) What are the anatomic and morphologic differences, if any, in the knee and hip between men and women? (2) Do gender-specific TKA designs provide better clinical functioning, survivorship, and improved fit in women? (3) How have anatomic differences in the hip been addressed, if at all, by THA? Methods We conducted a systematic review of the MEDLINE database to identify all articles reviewing basic science and clinical outcomes of gender-specific total knee and total hip implants. From these, we reviewed 253 studies.Results The anatomic studies elucidated multiple differences in the anatomy of knees and hips between men and women. All reviewed studies report similar clinical function and satisfaction scores between men and women for gender-specific TKA and no improvement in these scores when comparing gender-specific TKA to unisex TKA.