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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | The Journal of arthroplasty 2017-10, Vol.32 (10), p.3102-3107 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
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 & 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</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 & control</subject><subject>Hip Prosthesis - statistics & 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 & 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 & control</topic><topic>Hip Prosthesis - statistics & 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 & 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 |