Risk of Complication and Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty Among Medicare Patients with Different Bearing Surfaces

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, CA 94143-0728, USA.
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research (Impact Factor: 2.88). 02/2010; 468(9):2357-62. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-010-1262-3
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To address the long-term problems of bearing surface wear and osteolysis associated with conventional metal-polyethylene (M-PE) total hip arthroplasty (THA), metal-metal (M-M), and ceramic-ceramic (C-C) bearings have been introduced. These bearing surfaces are associated with unique risks and benefits and higher costs. However the relative risks of these three bearings in an older population is unknown.
We compared the short-term risk of complication and revision THA among Medicare patients having a primary THA with metal-polyethylene (M-PE), metal-metal (M-M), and ceramic-ceramic (C-C) bearings.
We used the 2005 to 2007 100% Medicare inpatient claim files to perform a matched cohort analysis in three separate cohorts of THA patients (M-PE, M-M, and C-C) who were matched by age, gender, and US census region. Multivariate Cox proportional-hazards models were constructed to compare complication and revision THA risk among cohorts, adjusting for medical comorbidities, race, socioeconomic status, and hospital factors.
After adjusting for patient and hospital factors, M-M bearings were associated with a higher risk of periprosthetic joint infection (hazard ratio, 3.03; confidence interval, 1.02-9.09) when compared with C-C bearings (0.59% versus 0.32%, respectively). There were no other differences among bearing cohorts in the adjusted risk of revision THA or any other complication.
The risk of short-term complication (including dislocation) and revision THA were similar among appropriately matched Medicare THA patients regardless of bearing surface. Hard-on-hard THA bearings are of questionable value in Medicare patients, given the higher cost associated with their use and uncertain long-term benefits in older patients.
Level II, prognostic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

1 Follower
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To determine the evidence of effectiveness and safety for introduction of five recent and ostensibly high value implantable devices in major joint replacement to illustrate the need for change and inform guidance on evidence based introduction of new implants into healthcare.
    BMJ Clinical Research 09/2014; 349:g5133. DOI:10.1136/bmj.g5133 · 14.09 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Wear debris, of deferent sizes, shapes and quantities, generated in artificial hip and knees is largely confined to the bone and joint interface. This debris interacts with periprosthetic tissue and may cause aseptic loosening. The purpose of this review is to summarize and collate findings of the recent demonstrations on debris characterization and their biological response that influences the occurrence in implant migration. A systematic review of peer-reviewed literature is performed, based on inclusion and exclusion criteria addressing mainly debris isolation, characterization, and biologic responses. Results show that debris characterization largely depends on their appropriate and accurate isolation protocol. The particles are found to be non-uniform in size and non-homogeneously distributed into the periprosthetic tissues. In addition, the sizes, shapes, and volumes of the particles are influenced by the types of joints, bearing geometry, material combination, and lubricant. Phagocytosis of wear debris is size dependent; high doses of submicron-sized particles induce significant level of secretion of bone resorbing factors. However, articles on wear debris from engineered surfaces (patterned and coated) are lacking. The findings suggest considering debris morphology as an important parameter to evaluate joint simulator and newly developed implant materials.
    Materials 02/2014; 7(2):980-1016. DOI:10.3390/ma7020980 · 1.88 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Luxation following endoprosthetic hip replacement represents a frequent and severe complication and is the reason for a relevant number of hip arthroplasty revision interventions. The probability of occurrence of luxation of a total hip arthroplasty is associated with the indications, patient and operation-specific risk factors. Approximately 50 % of luxations after total hip arthroplasty occur within 3 months of the operation (early luxation). The diagnostics of luxation of total hip arthroplasty are carried out by clinical and radiological methods. The causative assignment is made by assessment of joint stability, the bony situation (e.g. loosening, periprosthetic fracture and defects) and the soft tissue (e.g. pelvitrochanterian musculature). In cases of clinical and paraclinical signs of infection and of late luxations, a joint puncture is indicated. Therapy decisions are made depending on the cause (e.g. implant malpositioning, pelvitrochanterian insufficiency, impingement, incongruence between head and inlay and combinations of causes). Therapy of acute total hip prosthesis luxation begins with imaging controlled repositioning carried out with the patient under adequate analgesia and sedation. Conservative therapy is carried out by immobilization with a hip joint orthesis or pelvis-leg cast for 6 weeks. Operative therapy strategies for recurrent luxation are restoration of the correct implant position and sufficient soft tissue tension. Larger hip heads, bipolar heads and tripolar cups are more commonly used due to the geometrically lower probability of dislocation (higher jumping distance). Luxation of total hip prostheses due to infection is treated according to the principles of periprosthetic infection therapy. The rate of recurrence of luxation of 30 % is high so that in cases of unsuccessful therapy treatment should best be carried out in a center for revision arthroplasty. The search for the exact cause of total hip prosthesis luxation is extremely important. A classification is only possible when the exact cause is known and together with patient and implant-specific details the therapeutic approach can be ascertained. In revision operations the intraoperative functional diagnostics must be exactly documented. The reasons for delayed luxations could be prosthesis infections, abrasion and loosening.
    Der Orthopäde 01/2014; 43(1). DOI:10.1007/s00132-013-2125-x · 0.67 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 23, 2014