Uncemented or cemented stems in first-time revision total hip replacement? An observational study of 867 patients including assessment of femoral bone defect size.

Background and purpose - Uncemented stems are gradually replacing cemented stems in hip revision surgery. We compared the risk of re-revision between uncemented and cemented revision stems and assessed whether the different fixation methods are used in similar femoral bone defects.Patients and methods - 867 patients operated on with uncemented or cemented stems in first-time hip revision surgery due to aseptic loosening performed 2006-2016 were identified in the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. Preoperative femoral bone defect size was assessed on radiographs of all patients. Cox regression models were fitted to estimate the adjusted risk of re-revision during different postoperative time periods. Re-revision of any component for any reason, and stem re-revision, as well as risk of cause-specific re-revision was estimated.Results - Most patients in both fixation groups had Paprosky class IIIA femoral bone defects prior to surgery, but there were more severe bone defects in the cemented group. The adjusted risk of re-revision of any component for any reason was higher in patients with uncemented compared with those with cemented revision stems during the first 3 years after index surgery (hazard ratio [HR] 4, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2-9). From the 4th year onward, the risk of re-revision of any component for any reason was similar (HR 0.5, CI 0.2-1.4). Uncemented revision stems conferred a higher risk of dislocation compared with cemented stems (HR 5, CI 1.2-23) during the first 3 years.Interpretation - Although not predominantly used in more complex femoral defects, uncemented revision stem fixation confers a slightly higher risk of re-revision during the first years, but this risk is attenuated after longer follow-up.

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.

Background and purpose - Uncemented stems are increasingly used in revision hip arthroplasty, but only a few studies have analyzed the outcomes of uncemented and cemented revision stems in large cohorts of patients. We compared the results of uncemented and cemented revision stems. Patients and methods - 1,668 uncemented and 1,328 cemented revision stems used in first-time revisions due to aseptic loosening between 1999 and 2016 were identified in the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to investigate unadjusted implant survival with re-revision for any reason as the primary outcome. Hazard ratios (HR) for the risk of re-revision were calculated using a Cox regression model adjusted for sex, age, head size, concomitant cup revision, surgical approach at primary and at index revision surgery, and indication for primary total hip arthroplasty. Results - Unadjusted 10-year survival was 85% (95% CI 83-87) for uncemented and 88% (CI 86-90) for cemented revision stems. The adjusted HR for re-revision of uncemented revision stems during the first year after surgery was 1.3 (CI 1.0-1.6), from the second year the HR was 1.1 (CI 0.8-1.4). Uncemented stems were most often re-revised early due to infection and dislocation, whereas cemented stems were mostly re-revised later due to aseptic loosening. Interpretation - Both uncemented and cemented revision stems had satisfactory long-term survival but they differed in their modes of failure. Our conclusions are limited by the fact that femoral bone defect size could not be investigated within the setting of the current study.

Association between patient survival following reoperation after total hip replacement and the reason for reoperation: an analysis of 9,926 patients in the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register.

Background and purpose - The association between long-term patient survival and elective primary total hip replacement (THR) has been described extensively. The long-term survival following reoperation of THR is less well understood. We investigated the relative survival of patients undergoing reoperation following elective THR and explored an association between the indication for the reoperation and relative survival. Patients and methods - In this observational cohort study we selected the patients who received an elective primary THR and subsequent reoperations during 1999-2017 as recorded in the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. The selected cohort was followed until the end of the study period, censoring or death. The indications for 1st- and eventual 2nd-time reoperations were analyzed and the relative survival ratio of the observed survival and the expected survival was determined. Results - There were 9,926 1st-time reoperations and of these 2,558 underwent further reoperations. At 5 years after the latest reoperation, relative survival following 1st-time reoperations was 0.94% (95% CI 0.93-0.96) and 0.90% (CI 0.87-0.92) following 2nd-time reoperations. At 5 years patients with a 1st-time reoperation for aseptic loosening had higher survival than expected; however, reoperations performed for periprosthetic fracture, dislocation, and infection had lower survival. Interpretation - The relative survival following 1st- and 2nd-time reoperations in elective THR patients differs by reason for reoperation. The impact of reoperation on life expectancy is more obvious for infection/dislocation and periprosthetic fracture.