Do the Reasons for Ceramic-on-ceramic Revisions Differ From Other Bearings in Total Hip Arthroplasty?

BACKGROUND: Despite widespread use of ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC) in total hip arthroplasty (THA) during the past 10 years, little is known about why revisions are performed in hips with this bearing or the time elapsed before revision. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: The purposes of this study were: (1) Do the reasons for first revision differ between CoC bearings and other bearing couples? (2) Does the time to revision differ between CoC and other bearing couples? (3) Are there unique reasons for revisions of CoC bearings? METHODS: All members of the Société Française de Chirurgie Orthopédique et Traumatologique (SoFCOT) who performed ≥ 30 revisions per year were invited to participate in this multicenter, prospective, observational study. Our data represent 12% of the revision procedures performed in France. A total of 2107 first revisions of THA (from January 2010 to December 2011) were done in 2107 patients (1201 females [57%] and 906 males [43%]; median age, 73 years; age range, 17-104 years) at the time of surgery after a median of 11 years (range, 0 day-42 years) after the primary THA. There were 238 of 2107 (11%) CoC, 148 of 2107 (7%) metal-on-metal (MoM), and 1721 of 2017 (82%) metal-on-polyethylene (MoP) bearings. RESULTS: The reasons for reoperation differed according to the bearing component: (1) for the MoP reference bearing (odds ratio [OR]; 95% confidence interval), cup loosening occurred in 698 of 1721 hips (41%), periprosthetic fracture in 220 of 1721 hips (13%), and osteolysis in 213 of 1721 hips (12%); (2) for CoC, cup loosening occurred in 41 of 238 hips (17%) (OR, 0.31 [0.22-0.43; p < 0.001), infection in 39 of 238 hips (16%) (OR, 1.63 [1.12-2.37]; p = 0.01), and dislocation in 23 of 238 hips (10%) (OR, 0.9 [0.57-1.42]; p = 0.9); (3) for MoM, cup loosening occurred in 28 of 148 hips (19%) (OR, 0.34 [0.22-0.52]; p < 0.001), adverse reaction to metallic debris in 26 of 148 hips (18%) (OR, 18.12 [9.84-33.4]; p < 0.001), and infection in 16 of 148 hips (11%) (OR, 1 [0.59-1.73]; p = 0.9). In comparison with MoP, osteolysis was rarely the reason for revision in CoC (four of 238 hips [2%]; OR, 0.12 [0.05-0.33]; p < 0.001), but this bearing was frequently revised because of iliopsoas irritation (18 of 238 hips [8%]; OR, 4.9 [2.7-9]; p < 0.001). The time elapsed before revision differed between bearings: median of 3 years (range, 3 days to 28 years) for CoC and 4 years (range, 14 days to 37 years) for MoM versus a median 13 years (range, 0 day to 42 years) for MoP (p < 0.001). Thirty-seven of the 238 revisions (16%) were directly related to ceramic use (ceramic breakage [n = 23], squeaking [n = 6], impingement [n = 7], incorrect ceramic insert insertion [n = 1]). No factors were identified that contributed to breakage of the 12 bulk ceramic components (eight heads, four inserts, four of 12 Delta ceramic). No factors were associated with squeaking, iliopsoas irritation, or impingement, but component orientation was not assessed. CONCLUSIONS: The reasons and time to first revision differed between CoC and other bearings. CoC THAs are revised earlier and are sensitive to mechanical problems such as impingement, squeaking, and ceramic rupture that did not disappear with introduction of Delta ceramics and large-diameter (≥ 36 mm) bearings. CoC was rarely revised for osteolysis, but a high rate of iliopsoas irritation requires further investigation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Prospective study of the reproducibility of X-rays and CT scans for assessing trochanteric fracture comminution in the elderly: a series of 110 cases.

BACKGROUND: Trochanteric fractures are common but difficult to analyse in the elderly on plain X-rays. Fixation failures are related to the severity of the comminution, but comminution and the degree of instability are not easy to determine on standard X-rays. Use of computed tomography (CT) improves assessment of complex fractures, but this finding has not been confirmed versus intraoperative data. The primary objective of this prospective study was to determine the error rate when evaluating comminution on X-rays and CT scans. The secondary objectives were to determine whether CT data on comminution and stability were consistent with intraoperative findings and to define the fracture characteristics. HYPOTHESIS: Standard X-ray assessment underestimates the complexity of trochanteric fractures and is not very reproducible. METHODS: Between January and December 2013, all proximal femur fractures in the trochanter area of patients aged 75 years or older (mean age 85) were analysed prospectively with standard X-rays and computed tomography (CT). One hundred and ten patients (88 women and 22 men) with trochanteric fractures were included in the study. Fracture stability was evaluated using the Müller AO classification; the other fracture characteristics were evaluated independently. A senior surgeon evaluated the anonymised X-rays. A radiologist specialised in musculoskeletal imaging interpreted the CT scan images. All patients underwent total hip arthroplasty (110 patients) and 104 fixations of the greater trochanter. The X-ray and CT findings were compared to the intraoperative findings (gold standard) to evaluate their reproducibility. RESULTS: The reproducibility of the X-ray evaluation was poor for comminution, with a kappa of 0.4, sensitivity of 44 % and a negative predictive value of 29 % but a positive predictive value and specificity of 100 %. The CT evaluation had a kappa of 0.94, sensitivity of 95 % and negative predictive value of 79 %. According to the AO classification, unstable fractures were found in 65 patients based on X-rays, 80 patients based on CT scan and 83 patients based on intraoperative findings. Comminution was mainly identified during surgery; it was medial in 34 % of cases, posterior in 22 % and posteromedial in 21.8 %. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: In the current study, 75.4 % of fractures were complex and unstable, with medial and/or posterior comminution present in three-quarters of these fractures. X-ray assessment underestimates posterior comminution and the complexity of the fracture line and was not very reproducible. The current results of this study suggest that comminution contributes to instability and that this finding is not taken into account in the AO classification, which is not well suited for this type of fracture and raises the question of how to best evaluate and treat these fractures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prospective diagnostic study, Level III.