Do Rerevision Rates Differ After First-time Revision of Primary THA With a Cemented and Cementless Femoral Component?
- PMID: 25762017
- PMCID: PMC4586243
- DOI: 10.1007/s11999-015-4245-6
Do Rerevision Rates Differ After First-time Revision of Primary THA With a Cemented and Cementless Femoral Component?
Abstract
Background: Worldwide use of cementless fixation for total hip arthroplasty (THA) is on the rise despite some evidence from the world's registries suggesting inferior survivorship compared with cemented techniques. The patterns of bone loss associated with failed cementless and cemented THAs may prejudice the results of future revision procedures; however, this has not been documented.
Questions/purposes: The purpose of this study was to compare (1) the risk for rerevision of first revision THA; (2) the patterns of femoral bone loss at the time of first revision of primary THA; (3) the reasons for first revision of primary THA; and (4) the time to first revision of primary THA between primary cementless and cemented femoral components.
Methods: Primary THAs with cemented (n = 1791) and uncemented (n = 805) femoral components that subsequently sustained first revision of the femoral component were identified from the Danish Hip Arthroplasty Registry (DHR). As of 2012, 120,988 primary THAs and 19,282 revisions were registered in the DHR with completeness of 97% and 90% for primary and revision THA, respectively. Median followup for revisions of primary THA with cemented and cementless femoral component was 4 years (range, 0-17 years) and 2 years (range, 0-16 years), respectively. Survival of first revision THA, with second revision of the femur as outcome, was evaluated using hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence interval (CI) adjusting for potential confounding. All patient- and surgery-related data are collected from Danish medical databases. Recording of bone defects in the DHR is based on surgeons' intraoperative findings.
Results: With the numbers studied, we found no differences in the risk of second revision between the overall cohort between cementless and cemented techniques (HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 0.97-1.80; p = 0.076); however, a second revision for any reason was more likely in patients < 70 years old in whom the index arthroplasty was performed using a cementless technique (HR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.01-2.17; p = 0.046). Increasingly severe femoral bone defects of type II (30% [532 of 1791] versus 13% [104 of 805]; p < 0.001) type III (11% [200 of 1791] versus 2% [12 of 805]; p < 0.001) and type IV (1% [26 of 1791] versus 0.4% [three of 805]; p = 0.016) were more frequent at revisions of cemented femoral components compared with cementless femoral components. Indications for first revision differed between primary cemented and uncemented femoral components, because a larger proportion of cemented femoral components was revised as a result of aseptic loosening compared with cementless femoral components (74% [1329 of 1791] versus 25% [197 of 805]; p < 0.001), whereas a larger proportion of cementless femoral components was revised as a result of a fracture compared with cemented femoral components (46% [371 of 805] versus 10% [168 of 1791]; p < 0.001). Failure before 5 years was more likely in cementless femoral components than cemented femoral components (91% [733 of 805] versus 44% [749 of 1791], p < 0.001).
Conclusions: We found no differences in the risk of second revision in the overall cohort between cementless and cemented techniques; however, we observed an increased risk for rerevision THA performed on patients < 70 years whose index THAs were performed using cementless components when looking at all causes for revision, even after adjusting for the most likely confounding factors. Our data suggest that increased use of cementless fixation in primary THA may lead to inferior survivorship of first revision THA.
Level of evidence: Level III, therapeutic study.
Figures


Comment in
-
CORR Insights(®): Do Rerevision Rates Differ After First-time Revision of Primary THA With a Cemented and Cementless Femoral Component?Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015 Nov;473(11):3399-400. doi: 10.1007/s11999-015-4294-x. Epub 2015 Apr 17. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015. PMID: 25894809 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
Similar articles
-
Increased risk of periprosthetic femur fractures associated with a unique cementless stem design.Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015 Jun;473(6):2045-53. doi: 10.1007/s11999-014-4077-9. Epub 2014 Dec 12. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015. PMID: 25502478 Free PMC article.
-
Improved survival of uncemented versus cemented femoral stems in patients aged < 70 years in a community total joint registry.Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013 Nov;471(11):3588-95. doi: 10.1007/s11999-013-3182-5. Epub 2013 Jul 20. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013. PMID: 23873609 Free PMC article.
-
Is Cemented or Cementless Femoral Stem Fixation More Durable in Patients Older Than 75 Years of Age? A Comparison of the Best-performing Stems.Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2018 Jul;476(7):1428-1437. doi: 10.1097/01.blo.0000533621.57561.a4. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2018. PMID: 29683803 Free PMC article.
-
Low Reinfection Rates But a High Rate of Complications in THA for Infection Sequelae in Childhood: A Systematic Review.Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2021 May 1;479(5):1094-1108. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000001607. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2021. PMID: 33617159 Free PMC article.
-
Outcomes of different bearings in total hip arthroplasty - implant survival, revision causes, and patient-reported outcome.Dan Med J. 2017 Mar;64(3):B5350. Dan Med J. 2017. PMID: 28260601 Review.
Cited by
-
Partial versus early full weight bearing after uncemented total hip arthroplasty: a meta-analysis.J Orthop Surg Res. 2017 Feb 17;12(1):31. doi: 10.1186/s13018-017-0527-x. J Orthop Surg Res. 2017. PMID: 28212661 Free PMC article.
-
Has the Use of Fixation Techniques in THA Changed in This Decade? The Uncemented Paradox Revisited.Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2020 Apr;478(4):697-704. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000001117. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2020. PMID: 31899744 Free PMC article.
-
Uncemented or cemented revision stems? Analysis of 2,296 first-time hip revision arthroplasties performed due to aseptic loosening, reported to the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register.Acta Orthop. 2019 Oct;90(5):421-426. doi: 10.1080/17453674.2019.1624336. Epub 2019 Jun 3. Acta Orthop. 2019. PMID: 31154890 Free PMC article.
-
Impact of fixation method on femoral bone loss: a retrospective evaluation of stem loosening in first-time revision total hip arthroplasty among two hundred and fifty five patients.Int Orthop. 2024 Sep;48(9):2339-2350. doi: 10.1007/s00264-024-06230-4. Epub 2024 Jun 1. Int Orthop. 2024. PMID: 38822836 Free PMC article.
-
Two-stage revision for periprosthetic joint infection in cemented total hip arthroplasty: an increased risk for failure?Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2023 Jul;143(7):4481-4490. doi: 10.1007/s00402-022-04671-3. Epub 2022 Nov 3. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2023. PMID: 36323976 Free PMC article. Review.
References
-
- Andersen TF, Madsen M, Jørgensen J, Mellemkjoer L, Olsen JH. The Danish National Hospital Register. A valuable source of data for modern health sciences. Dan Med Bull. 1999;46:263–268. - PubMed
-
- Anonymous. International Classification of Diseases (ICD). Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2008.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
Research Materials