Constrained Acetabular Components Used in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Registry Analysis

Abstract Background Constrained acetabular components have a mechanism to lock in the femoral head. They have been developed to control postoperative dislocation, particularly in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). Although these components may reduce dislocation, there are durability concerns: w...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The Journal of arthroplasty 2017-10, Vol.32 (10), p.3102-3107
Hauptverfasser: Lewis, Peter L., MBBS, FRACS (Orth), FAOrthA, Graves, Stephen E., MBBS, FRACS, FAOrthA, de Steiger, Richard N., MBBS, FRACS (Orth), Cuthbert, Alana R., BMath Sc (Hons)
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 3107
container_issue 10
container_start_page 3102
container_title The Journal of arthroplasty
container_volume 32
creator Lewis, Peter L., MBBS, FRACS (Orth), FAOrthA
Graves, Stephen E., MBBS, FRACS, FAOrthA
de Steiger, Richard N., MBBS, FRACS (Orth)
Cuthbert, Alana R., BMath Sc (Hons)
description Abstract Background Constrained acetabular components have a mechanism to lock in the femoral head. They have been developed to control postoperative dislocation, particularly in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). Although these components may reduce dislocation, there are durability concerns: with reports of locking mechanism failures and loosening. We wanted to determine the outcome of constrained components in controlling dislocation, and if these components had a higher rate of second revision when compared with standard nonconstrained components. Methods Revision THA procedures from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) with a recorded primary procedure and initial diagnosis of osteoarthritis were used to compare constrained and standard nonconstrained components. Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship were calculated, and hazard ratios using Cox proportional hazard models were used to compare groups. Results There were 9509 THA first-revision procedures and 700 constrained components. Constrained components had a significantly higher revision rate after 3 months when large-head metal-on-metal components were included (hazard ratio = 1.37; P  = .005). When large-head metal-on-metal components were excluded, there was no difference in the rate of second revision between the 2 groups. When the analysis was limited to first revision for dislocation, constrained components had a higher second revision rate for further dislocation after 9 months. Conclusion Constrained acetabular components had similar second-revision rates when compared with standard nonconstrained components, both for all first-revision reasons and when used to treat dislocation. Although possibly used for the more difficult unstable hips, constrained components had a higher rate of second revision for further dislocation.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.arth.2017.04.043
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1905736860</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0883540317303844</els_id><sourcerecordid>1905736860</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c411t-c07aa24ec381460c989d8ce1c9b08e3e8e1c5cbfe4909a4a3c2eadae8130c1a93</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kUGLFDEQhYMo7rj6BzxIjl56rHTS3WkRoRlWV1gQdPdqyKRrNGMmaZP0Qv9708zqwYNQUAV574X6ipCXDLYMWPvmuNUx_9jWwLotiFL8EdmwhteVFNA-JhuQkleNAH5BnqV0BGCsacRTclHLpmvbWmzIt13wKUdtPY50MJj1fnY60l04TcGjz4nepfJkPf2C9zbZ4OltyNrRazvRofwfw-R0ystbOhTJd1vSFjp47ZZk03Py5KBdwhcP_ZLcfbi63V1XN58_ftoNN5URjOXKQKd1LdBwyUQLppf9KA0y0-9BIkdZxsbsDyh66LXQ3NSoR42ScTBM9_ySvD7nTjH8mjFldbLJoHPaY5iTYj00HW9lC0Van6UmhpQiHtQU7UnHRTFQK1d1VCtXtXJVIErxYnr1kD_vTzj-tfwBWQTvzgIsW95bjCoZi97gaCOarMZg_5___h-7cdZbo91PXDAdwxwL0bKHSrUC9XW97HpY1nHgUgj-G81Cn2I</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1905736860</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Constrained Acetabular Components Used in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Registry Analysis</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Lewis, Peter L., MBBS, FRACS (Orth), FAOrthA ; Graves, Stephen E., MBBS, FRACS, FAOrthA ; de Steiger, Richard N., MBBS, FRACS (Orth) ; Cuthbert, Alana R., BMath Sc (Hons)</creator><creatorcontrib>Lewis, Peter L., MBBS, FRACS (Orth), FAOrthA ; Graves, Stephen E., MBBS, FRACS, FAOrthA ; de Steiger, Richard N., MBBS, FRACS (Orth) ; Cuthbert, Alana R., BMath Sc (Hons)</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract Background Constrained acetabular components have a mechanism to lock in the femoral head. They have been developed to control postoperative dislocation, particularly in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). Although these components may reduce dislocation, there are durability concerns: with reports of locking mechanism failures and loosening. We wanted to determine the outcome of constrained components in controlling dislocation, and if these components had a higher rate of second revision when compared with standard nonconstrained components. Methods Revision THA procedures from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) with a recorded primary procedure and initial diagnosis of osteoarthritis were used to compare constrained and standard nonconstrained components. Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship were calculated, and hazard ratios using Cox proportional hazard models were used to compare groups. Results There were 9509 THA first-revision procedures and 700 constrained components. Constrained components had a significantly higher revision rate after 3 months when large-head metal-on-metal components were included (hazard ratio = 1.37; P  = .005). When large-head metal-on-metal components were excluded, there was no difference in the rate of second revision between the 2 groups. When the analysis was limited to first revision for dislocation, constrained components had a higher second revision rate for further dislocation after 9 months. Conclusion Constrained acetabular components had similar second-revision rates when compared with standard nonconstrained components, both for all first-revision reasons and when used to treat dislocation. Although possibly used for the more difficult unstable hips, constrained components had a higher rate of second revision for further dislocation.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0883-5403</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1532-8406</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2017.04.043</identifier><identifier>PMID: 28576624</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Acetabulum ; Aged ; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip - instrumentation ; Australia ; constrained acetabular components ; dislocation ; Femur Head ; Hip Dislocation - prevention &amp; control ; Hip Prosthesis - statistics &amp; numerical data ; Humans ; Joint Dislocations ; Metals ; nonconstrained components ; Orthopedics ; Proportional Hazards Models ; Prosthesis Design ; Prosthesis Failure ; Registries ; Reoperation - instrumentation ; Reoperation - statistics &amp; numerical data ; revision ; Risk Factors ; Secondary Prevention ; THA</subject><ispartof>The Journal of arthroplasty, 2017-10, Vol.32 (10), p.3102-3107</ispartof><rights>Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>2017 Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c411t-c07aa24ec381460c989d8ce1c9b08e3e8e1c5cbfe4909a4a3c2eadae8130c1a93</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c411t-c07aa24ec381460c989d8ce1c9b08e3e8e1c5cbfe4909a4a3c2eadae8130c1a93</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-3142-256X ; 0000-0003-2641-3754</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0883540317303844$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3536,27903,27904,65309</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28576624$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Lewis, Peter L., MBBS, FRACS (Orth), FAOrthA</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Graves, Stephen E., MBBS, FRACS, FAOrthA</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Steiger, Richard N., MBBS, FRACS (Orth)</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cuthbert, Alana R., BMath Sc (Hons)</creatorcontrib><title>Constrained Acetabular Components Used in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Registry Analysis</title><title>The Journal of arthroplasty</title><addtitle>J Arthroplasty</addtitle><description>Abstract Background Constrained acetabular components have a mechanism to lock in the femoral head. They have been developed to control postoperative dislocation, particularly in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). Although these components may reduce dislocation, there are durability concerns: with reports of locking mechanism failures and loosening. We wanted to determine the outcome of constrained components in controlling dislocation, and if these components had a higher rate of second revision when compared with standard nonconstrained components. Methods Revision THA procedures from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) with a recorded primary procedure and initial diagnosis of osteoarthritis were used to compare constrained and standard nonconstrained components. Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship were calculated, and hazard ratios using Cox proportional hazard models were used to compare groups. Results There were 9509 THA first-revision procedures and 700 constrained components. Constrained components had a significantly higher revision rate after 3 months when large-head metal-on-metal components were included (hazard ratio = 1.37; P  = .005). When large-head metal-on-metal components were excluded, there was no difference in the rate of second revision between the 2 groups. When the analysis was limited to first revision for dislocation, constrained components had a higher second revision rate for further dislocation after 9 months. Conclusion Constrained acetabular components had similar second-revision rates when compared with standard nonconstrained components, both for all first-revision reasons and when used to treat dislocation. Although possibly used for the more difficult unstable hips, constrained components had a higher rate of second revision for further dislocation.</description><subject>Acetabulum</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip - instrumentation</subject><subject>Australia</subject><subject>constrained acetabular components</subject><subject>dislocation</subject><subject>Femur Head</subject><subject>Hip Dislocation - prevention &amp; control</subject><subject>Hip Prosthesis - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Joint Dislocations</subject><subject>Metals</subject><subject>nonconstrained components</subject><subject>Orthopedics</subject><subject>Proportional Hazards Models</subject><subject>Prosthesis Design</subject><subject>Prosthesis Failure</subject><subject>Registries</subject><subject>Reoperation - instrumentation</subject><subject>Reoperation - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>revision</subject><subject>Risk Factors</subject><subject>Secondary Prevention</subject><subject>THA</subject><issn>0883-5403</issn><issn>1532-8406</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kUGLFDEQhYMo7rj6BzxIjl56rHTS3WkRoRlWV1gQdPdqyKRrNGMmaZP0Qv9708zqwYNQUAV574X6ipCXDLYMWPvmuNUx_9jWwLotiFL8EdmwhteVFNA-JhuQkleNAH5BnqV0BGCsacRTclHLpmvbWmzIt13wKUdtPY50MJj1fnY60l04TcGjz4nepfJkPf2C9zbZ4OltyNrRazvRofwfw-R0ystbOhTJd1vSFjp47ZZk03Py5KBdwhcP_ZLcfbi63V1XN58_ftoNN5URjOXKQKd1LdBwyUQLppf9KA0y0-9BIkdZxsbsDyh66LXQ3NSoR42ScTBM9_ySvD7nTjH8mjFldbLJoHPaY5iTYj00HW9lC0Van6UmhpQiHtQU7UnHRTFQK1d1VCtXtXJVIErxYnr1kD_vTzj-tfwBWQTvzgIsW95bjCoZi97gaCOarMZg_5___h-7cdZbo91PXDAdwxwL0bKHSrUC9XW97HpY1nHgUgj-G81Cn2I</recordid><startdate>20171001</startdate><enddate>20171001</enddate><creator>Lewis, Peter L., MBBS, FRACS (Orth), FAOrthA</creator><creator>Graves, Stephen E., MBBS, FRACS, FAOrthA</creator><creator>de Steiger, Richard N., MBBS, FRACS (Orth)</creator><creator>Cuthbert, Alana R., BMath Sc (Hons)</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3142-256X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2641-3754</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20171001</creationdate><title>Constrained Acetabular Components Used in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Registry Analysis</title><author>Lewis, Peter L., MBBS, FRACS (Orth), FAOrthA ; Graves, Stephen E., MBBS, FRACS, FAOrthA ; de Steiger, Richard N., MBBS, FRACS (Orth) ; Cuthbert, Alana R., BMath Sc (Hons)</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c411t-c07aa24ec381460c989d8ce1c9b08e3e8e1c5cbfe4909a4a3c2eadae8130c1a93</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Acetabulum</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip - instrumentation</topic><topic>Australia</topic><topic>constrained acetabular components</topic><topic>dislocation</topic><topic>Femur Head</topic><topic>Hip Dislocation - prevention &amp; control</topic><topic>Hip Prosthesis - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Joint Dislocations</topic><topic>Metals</topic><topic>nonconstrained components</topic><topic>Orthopedics</topic><topic>Proportional Hazards Models</topic><topic>Prosthesis Design</topic><topic>Prosthesis Failure</topic><topic>Registries</topic><topic>Reoperation - instrumentation</topic><topic>Reoperation - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>revision</topic><topic>Risk Factors</topic><topic>Secondary Prevention</topic><topic>THA</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Lewis, Peter L., MBBS, FRACS (Orth), FAOrthA</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Graves, Stephen E., MBBS, FRACS, FAOrthA</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Steiger, Richard N., MBBS, FRACS (Orth)</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cuthbert, Alana R., BMath Sc (Hons)</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>The Journal of arthroplasty</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Lewis, Peter L., MBBS, FRACS (Orth), FAOrthA</au><au>Graves, Stephen E., MBBS, FRACS, FAOrthA</au><au>de Steiger, Richard N., MBBS, FRACS (Orth)</au><au>Cuthbert, Alana R., BMath Sc (Hons)</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Constrained Acetabular Components Used in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Registry Analysis</atitle><jtitle>The Journal of arthroplasty</jtitle><addtitle>J Arthroplasty</addtitle><date>2017-10-01</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>32</volume><issue>10</issue><spage>3102</spage><epage>3107</epage><pages>3102-3107</pages><issn>0883-5403</issn><eissn>1532-8406</eissn><abstract>Abstract Background Constrained acetabular components have a mechanism to lock in the femoral head. They have been developed to control postoperative dislocation, particularly in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). Although these components may reduce dislocation, there are durability concerns: with reports of locking mechanism failures and loosening. We wanted to determine the outcome of constrained components in controlling dislocation, and if these components had a higher rate of second revision when compared with standard nonconstrained components. Methods Revision THA procedures from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) with a recorded primary procedure and initial diagnosis of osteoarthritis were used to compare constrained and standard nonconstrained components. Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship were calculated, and hazard ratios using Cox proportional hazard models were used to compare groups. Results There were 9509 THA first-revision procedures and 700 constrained components. Constrained components had a significantly higher revision rate after 3 months when large-head metal-on-metal components were included (hazard ratio = 1.37; P  = .005). When large-head metal-on-metal components were excluded, there was no difference in the rate of second revision between the 2 groups. When the analysis was limited to first revision for dislocation, constrained components had a higher second revision rate for further dislocation after 9 months. Conclusion Constrained acetabular components had similar second-revision rates when compared with standard nonconstrained components, both for all first-revision reasons and when used to treat dislocation. Although possibly used for the more difficult unstable hips, constrained components had a higher rate of second revision for further dislocation.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>28576624</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.arth.2017.04.043</doi><tpages>6</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3142-256X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2641-3754</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0883-5403
ispartof The Journal of arthroplasty, 2017-10, Vol.32 (10), p.3102-3107
issn 0883-5403
1532-8406
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1905736860
source MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals
subjects Acetabulum
Aged
Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip - instrumentation
Australia
constrained acetabular components
dislocation
Femur Head
Hip Dislocation - prevention & control
Hip Prosthesis - statistics & numerical data
Humans
Joint Dislocations
Metals
nonconstrained components
Orthopedics
Proportional Hazards Models
Prosthesis Design
Prosthesis Failure
Registries
Reoperation - instrumentation
Reoperation - statistics & numerical data
revision
Risk Factors
Secondary Prevention
THA
title Constrained Acetabular Components Used in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Registry Analysis
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-26T19%3A57%3A27IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Constrained%20Acetabular%20Components%20Used%20in%20Revision%20Total%20Hip%20Arthroplasty:%20A%20Registry%20Analysis&rft.jtitle=The%20Journal%20of%20arthroplasty&rft.au=Lewis,%20Peter%20L.,%20MBBS,%20FRACS%20(Orth),%20FAOrthA&rft.date=2017-10-01&rft.volume=32&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=3102&rft.epage=3107&rft.pages=3102-3107&rft.issn=0883-5403&rft.eissn=1532-8406&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.arth.2017.04.043&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1905736860%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1905736860&rft_id=info:pmid/28576624&rft_els_id=S0883540317303844&rfr_iscdi=true