Hip international : the journal of clinical and experimental research on hip pathology and therapy · 2022
Survival rates of anatomically shaped and tapered slip cemented femoral implants: an analysis of 76,281 femoral implants of the Dutch arthroplasty register (LROI).
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Heijnens Luc Jm, Heyligers Ide C, Boonen Bert, Spekenbrink-Spooren Anneke, van Haaren Emil H, Schotanus Martijn Gm
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: In cemented total hip arthroplasty (THA) various shapes and geometries of femoral implants are in use. Collarless, polished, and tapered (CPT) implants, and anatomically shaped (AS) implants are most commonly used. Due to their different design features, this might lead to different survival outcomes. In this register-based study, overall implant survival and short-term complications of CPT and AS cemented implants were evaluated.
METHODS: Data of the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI) were used. Cemented femoral implants, which could be classified as CPT or AS were included in this study. Implants were excluded when no classification could be made or if implanted <100 times. Survival analyses were performed using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and multivariable Cox-proportional hazard analysis.
RESULTS: 76,281 cemented THAs were included. At a mean of 5.1 years follow-up (SD 3.1, range 0-12 years), the overall survival of the AS implants was higher compared with the CPT implants, with a survival, of 99.2% and 99.0% respectively (log-rank; p < 0.001). Multivariable regression analysis revealed a higher rate for revision because of loosening of the AS implants (HR 2; CI, 1.4-3.1). AS implants had a lower rate for periprosthetic fractures compared with the CPT implants (HR 0.13; CI, 0.07-0.23).
CONCLUSIONS: Both designs show excellent overall survival rates at short-term follow-up. There is a higher overall survival of AS implants when compared with CPT implants. Revision for implant loosening, however, was statistically significantly higher in AS implants when compared with the CPT implants.
METHODS: Data of the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI) were used. Cemented femoral implants, which could be classified as CPT or AS were included in this study. Implants were excluded when no classification could be made or if implanted <100 times. Survival analyses were performed using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and multivariable Cox-proportional hazard analysis.
RESULTS: 76,281 cemented THAs were included. At a mean of 5.1 years follow-up (SD 3.1, range 0-12 years), the overall survival of the AS implants was higher compared with the CPT implants, with a survival, of 99.2% and 99.0% respectively (log-rank; p < 0.001). Multivariable regression analysis revealed a higher rate for revision because of loosening of the AS implants (HR 2; CI, 1.4-3.1). AS implants had a lower rate for periprosthetic fractures compared with the CPT implants (HR 0.13; CI, 0.07-0.23).
CONCLUSIONS: Both designs show excellent overall survival rates at short-term follow-up. There is a higher overall survival of AS implants when compared with CPT implants. Revision for implant loosening, however, was statistically significantly higher in AS implants when compared with the CPT implants.