Is routine mid-term total hip arthroplasty surveillance beneficial?

Systematic review of the clinical effectiveness for long-term follow-up of total hip arthroplasty

Objectives: Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is highly successful but national registries indicate that average age has lowered and that younger patients are at higher risk of revision. Long-term follow-up of THA was historically recommended to identify aseptically failing THA, minimising the risks associated with extensive changes, but follow-up services are now in decline. A systematic review was conducted to search for evidence of the clinical or cost-effectiveness of hip arthroplasty surveillance.

Methods: The study was registered with PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews and conducted according to PRISMA guidelines; databases included MEDLINE and Embase, and all studies were quality assessed. Original studies (2005 to 2017) reporting follow-up of adults with THA in situ >5 years were included. Researchers extracted quantitative and qualitative data from each study.

Results: For eligibility, 4,137 studies were screened: 114 studies were included in the final analysis, representing 22 countries worldwide. Data extracted included study endpoint, patient detail, loss to follow-up, revisions, scores and radiographic analysis. Six themes were derived from inductive content analysis of text: support for long-term follow-up, subgroups requiring follow-up, effect of materials/techniques on THA survival, effect of design, indicators for revision, review process. Main findings—follow-up was specifically recommended to monitor change (eg asymptomatic loosening), when outcomes of joint construct are unknown, and for specific patient subgroups. Outcome scores alone are not enough, and radiographic review should be included.

Conclusion: There were no studies directly evaluating the clinical effectiveness of the long-term follow-up of THA but expert opinions from a range of international authors advocated its use for defined subgroups to provide patient-centred care. In the absence of higher level evidence, these opinions, in conjunction with emerging outputs from the national joint registries, should be used to inform services for long-term follow-up of THA.

Point your SmartPhone at the code above. If you have a QR code reader the video abstract will appear. Or use:

https://youtu.be/lAKW3hQGyJQ

Bone-preserving total hip arthroplasty in avascular necrosis of the hip-a matched-pairs analysis

PURPOSE

Short-stem hip arthroplasty has the potential advantage of femoral bone stock preservation, especially in view of the expected revisions in the often relatively young patients. Despite short-stem hip prosthesis are increasingly used for total hip arthroplasty, there are no sufficient mid- and long-term results especially for patients with avascular femoral head osteonecrosis. The present study investigates mid-term functional results as well as the revision rate following implantation of a short-stem prosthesis.

METHODS

In the period 06/2005 until 12/2013, a total of 351 short-stem hip prostheses were implanted. The study included 331 complete data sets. A retrospective analysis was performed using the Oxford Hip Score. All revisions were registered.

RESULTS

In a total of 331 prostheses, the Oxford Hip Score was "excellent" in 66.2%, "good" in 12.7%, "fair" in 13.0%, and "poor" in 8.2% with a mean follow-up of 57.4 months (SD ± 29.8; range 24-115). In 26 cases, aseptic osteonecrosis of the hip was the indication (7.9%). The Oxford Hip Score was "excellent" in 66.7%, "good" in 0.0%, "fair" in 20.8%, and "poor" in 12.5%. The cumulated five year survival rate was 96.7%.

CONCLUSION

In mid-term observation, the Metha® short-stem prosthesis shows no disadvantage in functional outcome and in survival time compared to a standard hip stem. Providing a correct indication, the Metha® short stem is a valuable option in total hip arthroplasty for younger patients with avascular osteonecrosis of the femoral head. Evaluation has shown no significant differences between aseptic osteonecrosis and other indications.