When and how do prosthetic hips fail after total hip arthroplasties?-A retrospective study

The outcomes of total hip replacement in osteonecrosis versus osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the outcomes of THA in patients with osteonecrosis (ON) and those with osteoarthritis (OA).

METHODS

Four databases were searched from inception till December 2022 for original studies that compared the outcomes of THA in ON and OA. The primary outcome was the revision rate; the secondary outcomes were dislocation and Harris hip score. This review was conducted in line with PRISMA guidelines, and the risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale.

RESULTS

A total of 14 observational studies with 2,111,102 hips were included, with a mean age of 50.83 ± 9.32 and 55.51 ± 8.95 for ON and OA groups, respectively. The average follow-up was 7.25 ± 4.6 years. There was a statistically significant difference in revision rate between ON and OA patients in favour of OA (OR: 1.576; 95%CI: 1.24-2.00; p-value: 0.0015). However, dislocation rate (OR: 1.5004; 95%CI: 0.92-2.43; p-value: 0.0916) and Haris hip score (HHS) (SMD: - 0.0486; 95%CI: - 0.35-0.25; p-value: 0.6987) were comparable across both groups. Further sub-analysis adjusting for registry data also showed similar results between both groups.

CONCLUSION

A higher revision rate, periprosthetic fracture and periprosthetic joint infection following total hip arthroplasty were associated with osteonecrosis of the femoral head compared with osteoarthritis. However, both groups had similar dislocation rates and functional outcome measures. This finding should be applied in context due to potential confounding factors, including patient's age and activity level.

Comparison of Ceramic-on-Ceramic and Ceramic-on-Highly-Crosslinked-Polyethylene in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty: Findings of a Meta-Analysis

Introduction

An optimal hip implant is biocompatible, durable, and resistant to chemical and mechanical wear. This analysis aimed to compare failure (revision) and complication rates between ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC) and ceramic-on-highly-crosslinked-polyethylene (CoHXLPE) implants.

Methods

This review comprised of scientific literature published between 1995 and 2019. We included randomized controlled trials in adults (>18 years) that presented results of CoC and CoHXLPE total hip arthroplasty (THA) with more than two years of mean follow-up and drafted in English. The primary outcomes for this analysis were complications, revision rates, and loosening rates.

Results

Eight studies (1,689 hips) were included in this systematic review. There was no significant differences between COC and CoHXLPE for the risk of post-surgical complications (relative risk [RR]: 1.98, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.83-4.69, P = 0.12). Revision rates (RR: 1.25, 95% CI: 0.71-2.20, P = 0.43] and loosening rates between the two implants were not significantly different (RR: 1.17, 95% CI: 0.30-4.52, P = 0.82).

Conclusion

We report no significant differences between CoHXLPE and CoC in adults undergoing primary THA. Although introduced relatively recently, CoHXLPE is a cost-effective bearing that can be used for younger patients with no risk of increased complications in comparison to CoC. Further studies with longer follow-up periods are recommended to confirm the findings of this meta-analysis.

Total hip arthroplasty: Survival and modes of failure

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a very satisfactory surgical procedure for end-stage hip disorders.

Implant modifications, such as large femoral heads to improve stability, porous metals to enhance fixation and alternative bearings to improve wear, have been introduced over the last decade in order to decrease the rate of early and late failures.

There is a changing pattern of THA failure modes.

The relationship between failure modes and patient-related factors, and the time and type of revision are important for understanding and preventing short and late failure of implants.

The early adoption of innovations in either technique or implant design may lead to an increased risk of early failure.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2018;3 DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.3.170068