A Single Femoral Component for All Total Hip Replacements Performed by a Trust? Does This Affect Early Clinical and Radiological Outcomes?

Overview

Journal Arch Bone Jt Surg

Date 2018 Feb 13

PMID 29430492

Authors

James Ricketts

Paul Sherry

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Hospitals may be under pressure to implement cost saving strategies regarding prosthesis choice. This may involve the use of components which are not the first preference of individual surgeons, or those they have little experience with. We aim to examine the effect of standardizing the type of femoral stem used in a single trust, and determine whether this is safe practice, particularly in those who have never used this particular stem before.

Methods: We report results at 2 years of 151 primary total hip arthroplasties performed using a single femoral stem. Data was split into 2 groups: those in which the operating surgeon was previously using this femoral stem, and those who were not. Radiographic outcomes measured were leg length discrepancy, cement mantle grade, and femoral stem alignment. We also report on clinical outcomes, complications, and construct survivability.

Results: No significant differences in clinical outcomes were observed. Cement quality was generally worse in those with no prior use of this stem. Leg length inequality was greater in those previously using the stem (+1.57mm vs 3.83mm), however this did not correlate to clinical outcomes. Alignment was similar between the groups (=0.464).

Conclusion: Our findings suggest that although clinical outcomes are similar at 2 years, radiological differences can be observed even at this early stage in follow up. Choice of components for arthroplasty should remain surgeon led until long term follow up studies can prove otherwise. III.

References

Barrack R, Mulroy Jr R, Harris W . Improved cementing techniques and femoral component loosening in young patients with hip arthroplasty. A 12-year radiographic review. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1992; 74(3):385-9. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.74B3.1587883. View

Berstock J, Whitehouse M, Piper D, Eastaugh-Waring S, Blom A . A 5-8 year retrospective follow-up of the C-stem AMT femoral component: patient reported outcomes and survivorship analysis. J Arthroplasty. 2014; 29(9):1753-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2014.04.034. View

Ravi B, Jenkinson R, Austin P, Croxford R, Wasserstein D, Escott B . Relation between surgeon volume and risk of complications after total hip arthroplasty: propensity score matched cohort study. BMJ. 2014; 348:g3284. PMC: 4032026. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.g3284. View

Manaster B . From the RSNA refresher courses. Total hip arthroplasty: radiographic evaluation. Radiographics. 1996; 16(3):645-60. DOI: 10.1148/radiographics.16.3.8897629. View

Salai M, Mintz Y, Giveon U, Chechik A, Horoszowski H . The "learning curve" of total hip arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1997; 116(6-7):420-2. DOI: 10.1007/BF00434004. View

McBride T, Prakash D . How to read a postoperative total hip replacement radiograph. Postgrad Med J. 2010; 87(1024):101-9. DOI: 10.1136/pgmj.2009.095620. View

de Beer J, McKenzie S, Hubmann M, Petruccelli D, Winemaker M . Influence of cementless femoral stems inserted in varus on functional outcome in primary total hip arthroplasty. Can J Surg. 2007; 49(6):407-11. PMC: 3207554. View

Pluot E, Davis E, Revell M, Davies A, James S . Hip arthroplasty. Part 2: normal and abnormal radiographic findings. Clin Radiol. 2009; 64(10):961-71. DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2009.05.002. View

Johnson A, Costa C, Naziri Q, Mont M . Is there a new learning curve with transition to a new resurfacing system?. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis. 2011; 69 Suppl 1:S16-9. View

10.

Edeen J, Sharkey P, Alexander A . Clinical significance of leg-length inequality after total hip arthroplasty. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 1995; 24(4):347-51. View

11.

Peltola M, Malmivaara A, Paavola M . Introducing a knee endoprosthesis model increases risk of early revision surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011; 470(6):1711-7. PMC: 3348304. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-011-2171-9. View

12.

Zuckerman J, Kummer F, Frankel V . The effectiveness of a hospital-based strategy to reduce the cost of total joint implants. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1994; 76(6):807-11. DOI: 10.2106/00004623-199406000-00003. View

13.

Pellicci P, Salvati E, Robinson H . Mechanical failures in total hip replacement requiring reoperation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1979; 61(1):28-36. View

14.

Duwelius P, Parvizi J, Matsen Ko L . New technology: safety, efficacy, and learning curves. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013; 472(4):1080-5. PMC: 3940743. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-013-3413-9. View

15.

Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M . Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007; 89(4):780-5. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.F.00222. View

16.

Healy W, Iorio R, Richards J, Lucchesi C . Opportunities for control of hospital costs for total joint arthroplasty after initial cost containment. J Arthroplasty. 1998; 13(5):504-7. DOI: 10.1016/s0883-5403(98)90048-1. View

17.

Kobayashi S, Eftekhar N, Terayama K . Predisposing factors in fixation failure of femoral prostheses following primary Charnley low friction arthroplasty. A 10- to 20-year followup study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994; (306):73-83. View

18.

Roberts C, Chew F . Radiographic imaging of hip replacement hardware. Semin Roentgenol. 2005; 40(3):320-32. DOI: 10.1053/j.ro.2005.01.019. View

19.

Kandala N, Connock M, Pulikottil-Jacob R, Sutcliffe P, Crowther M, Grove A . Setting benchmark revision rates for total hip replacement: analysis of registry evidence. BMJ. 2015; 350:h756. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.h756. View

20.

Barber T, Healy W . The hospital cost of total hip arthroplasty. A comparison between 1981 and 1990. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1993; 75(3):321-5. DOI: 10.2106/00004623-199303000-00002. View