Risk factors for total hip arthroplasty aseptic revision

Journal of Arthroplasty

Volumn 29, Issue 7, 2014, Pages 1412-1417

  Khatod, Monti ^a   Cafri, Guy ^a   Namba, Robert S ^a   Inacio, Maria C S ^a   Paxton, Elizabeth W ^a  

^a KAISER PERMANENTE   (United States)

Author keywords

Aseptic revisions; Risk factors; Total hip arthroplasty; Total Joint Replacement Registry

Indexed keywords

AGED; ARTICLE; ASIAN; BODY MASS; BONE NECROSIS; CERAMIC ON CERAMIC PROSTHESIS; CERAMIC ON CONVENTIONAL POLYETHYLENE PROSTHESIS; CERAMIC PROSTHESIS; DIABETES MELLITUS; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HEALTH STATUS; HEMATOMA; HISPANIC; HUMAN; LEG LENGTH INEQUALITY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; METAL ON CONVENTIONAL POLYETHYLENE PROSTHESIS; OSTEOARTHRITIS; PERIPROSTHETIC FRACTURE; PROSTHESIS LOOSENING; REOPERATION; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; RISK FACTOR; SEROMA; SURVIVAL RATE; TOTAL HIP PROSTHESIS; WOUND DEHISCENCE; WOUND DRAINAGE;

ASEPTIC REVISIONS; RISK FACTORS; TOTAL HIP ARTHROPLASTY; TOTAL JOINT REPLACEMENT REGISTRY;

ADULT; AGED; ARTHROPLASTY, REPLACEMENT, HIP; BODY MASS INDEX; CERAMICS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; METALS; MIDDLE AGED; POLYETHYLENE; PROSTHESIS DESIGN; PROSTHESIS FAILURE; REGISTRIES; REOPERATION; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RISK FACTORS; SURVIVAL RATE; TREATMENT OUTCOME; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84902774379     PISSN: 08835403     EISSN: 15328406     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2014.01.023     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Australian Orthopedic Association. Hip and Knee Arthroplasty. National Joint Replacement Registry. 2010 Annual Report. University of Adelaide, 2011. Available at:. Accessed June 7, 2012. http://www.dmac.adelaide.edu.au/aoanjrr/documents/aoanjrrreport_2010.pdf.
2. Battaglia T.C., Mulhall K.J., Brown T.E., et al. Increased surgical volume is associated with lower THA dislocation rates. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006, 447:28.
3. Berry D.J., Harmsen W.S., Cabanela M.E., et al. Twenty-five-year survivorship of two thousand consecutive primary Charnley total hip replacements: factors affecting survivorship of acetabular and femoral components. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2002, 84-A:171.
4. Berry D.J., von Knoch M., Schleck C.D., et al. Effect of femoral head diameter and operative approach on risk of dislocation after primary total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005, 87:2456.
5. Bozic K.J., Ong K., Lau E., et al. Risk of complication and revision total hip arthroplasty among Medicare patients with different bearing surfaces. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010, 468:2357.
6. Conroy J.L., Whitehouse S.L., Graves S.E., et al. Risk factors for revision for early dislocation in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2008, 23:867.
7. Corbett K.L., Losina E., Nti A.A., et al. Population-based rates of revision of primary total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review. PLoS One 2010, 5:e13520.
8. Crawford R.W., Murray D.W. Total hip replacement: indications for surgery and risk factors for failure. Ann Rheum Dis 1997, 56:455.
9. Medical Devices Recalls. Recalls Specific to Metal-on-Metal Hip Implant Systems DePuy ASR XL Acetabular System. August 24, 2010. Available at:. Accessed August 13, 2012. http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/ImplantsandProsthetics/MetalonMetalHipImplants/ucm241770.htm.
10. Haddad F., Oussedik S. Insufficient evidence to recommend a specific bearing surface in implantable hip devices: comparative studies find little difference in outcomes. Evid Based Med 2013, 18:22.
11. Hailer N.P., Garellick G., Karrholm J. Uncemented and cemented primary total hip arthroplasty in the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop 2010, 81:34.
12. Hailer N.P., Weiss R.J., Stark A., et al. Dual-mobility cups for revision due to instability are associated with a low rate of re-revisions due to dislocation: 228 patients from the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop 2012, 83:566.
13. Haverkamp D., de Man F.H., de Jong P.T., et al. Is the long-term outcome of cemented THA jeopardized by patients being overweight?. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2008, 466:1162.
14. Hooper G.J., Rothwell A.G., Stringer M., et al. Revision following cemented and uncemented primary total hip replacement: a seven-year analysis from the New Zealand Joint Registry. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2009, 91:451.
15. Howie D.W., Holubowycz O.T., Middleton R. Large femoral heads decrease the incidence of dislocation after total hip arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2012, 94:1095.
16. Jackson M.P., Sexton S.A., Yeung E., et al. The effect of obesity on the mid-term survival and clinical outcome of cementless total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2009, 91:1296.
17. Jameson S.S., Mason J.M., Baker P.N., et al. Factors influencing revision risk following 15 740 single-brand hybrid hip arthroplasties: a cohort study from a national joint registry. J Arthroplasty 2013, 28:1152.
18. Johnsen S.P., Sorensen H.T., Lucht U., et al. Patient-related predictors of implant failure after primary total hip replacement in the initial, short- and long-terms. A nationwide Danish follow-up study including 36,984 patients. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2006, 88:1303.
19. Katz J.N., Losina E., Barrett J., et al. Association between hospital and surgeon procedure volume and outcomes of total hip replacement in the United States Medicare population. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2001, 83-A:1622.
20. Katz J.N., Wright E.A., Wright J., et al. Twelve-year risk of revision after primary total hip replacement in the U.S. Medicare population. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2012, 94:1825.
21. Kurtz S., Ong K., Lau E., et al. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007, 89:780.
22. Lin D.Y., Wei L.J., Ying Z. Checking the Cox model with cumulative sums of martingale-based residuals. Biometrika 1993, 80:557.
23. Losina E., Barrett J., Mahomed N.N., et al. Early failures of total hip replacement: effect of surgeon volume. Arthritis Rheum 2004, 50:1338.
24. Mahomed N.N., Barrett J.A., Katz J.N., et al. Rates and outcomes of primary and revision total hip replacement in the United States Medicare population. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003, 85-A:27.
25. Malik M.H., Bayat A., Jury F., et al. Genetic susceptibility to hip arthroplasty failure-association with the RANK/OPG pathway. Int Orthop 2006, 30:177.
26. Manley M., Ong K., Lau E., et al. Effect of volume on total hip arthroplasty revision rates in the United States Medicare population. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2008, 90:2446.
27. Nikolaou V.S., Edwards M.R., Bogoch E., et al. A prospective randomised controlled trial comparing three alternative bearing surfaces in primary total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2012, 94:459.
28. Ong K.L., Lau E., Suggs J., et al. Risk of subsequent revision after primary and revision total joint arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010, 468:3070.
29. Paxton E., Inacio M., Slipchenko T., et al. The Kaiser Permanente National Total Joint Replacement Registry. The Permanente Journal 2008, 12:12.
30. Paxton E., Namba R., Maletis G., et al. A prospective study of 80,000 total joint and 5,000 anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction procedures in a community-based registry in the United States. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 2010, 92(Supplement 2):117.
31. Paxton E.W., Inacio M.C., Khatod M., et al. Kaiser Permanente National Total Joint Replacement Registry: aligning operations with information technology. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010, 468:2646.
32. Paxton E.W., Inacio M.C.S., Kiley M.L. The Kaiser Permanente Implant Registries: effect on patient safety, quality improvement, cost effectiveness, and research opportunities. Perm J 2012, 16(2):33.
33. Pivec R., Johnson A.J., Mears S.C., et al. Hip arthroplasty. Lancet 2012, 380:1768.
34. Prokopetz J.J., Losina E., Bliss R.L., et al. Risk factors for revision of primary total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2012, 13:251.
35. Rubin D.B. Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys 1987, Wiley, New York.
36. Santaguida P.L., Hawker G.A., Hudak P.L., et al. Patient characteristics affecting the prognosis of total hip and knee joint arthroplasty: a systematic review. Can J Surg 2008, 51:428.
37. Sedrakyan A., Normand S.L., Dabic S., et al. Comparative assessment of implantable hip devices with different bearing surfaces: systematic appraisal of evidence. BMJ 2011, 343:d7434.
38. Smith A.J., Dieppe P., Vernon K., et al. Failure rates of stemmed metal-on-metal hip replacements: analysis of data from the National Joint Registry of England and Wales. Lancet 2012, 379:1199.
39. Soderman P., Malchau H., Herberts P. Outcome after total hip arthroplasty: part I. General health evaluation in relation to definition of failure in the Swedish National Total Hip Arthoplasty register. Acta Orthop Scand 2000, 71:354.
40. Soohoo N.F., Farng E., Lieberman J.R., et al. Factors that predict short-term complication rates after total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010, 468:2363.
41. Stea S., Bordini B., De Clerico M., et al. First hip arthroplasty register in Italy: 55,000 cases and 7year follow-up. Int Orthop 2009, 33:339.
42. Voleti P.B., Baldwin K.D., Lee G.C. Metal-on-metal vs conventional total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Arthroplasty 2012, 27:1844.
43. Wright E.A., Katz J.N., Baron J.A., et al. Risk factors for revision of primary total hip replacement: results from a national case-control study. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2012, 64:1879.