The Journal of arthroplasty · 2020
A Comparison of Risk of Dislocation and Cause-Specific Revision Between Direct Anterior and Posterior Approach Following Elective Cementless Total Hip Arthroplasty.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Charney Mark, Paxton Elizabeth W, Stradiotto Ronald, Lee John J, Hinman Adrian D, Sheth Dhiren S, Prentice Heather A
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Use of the direct anterior approach (DAA) for total hip arthroplasty (THA) has increased over the last decade. We sought to investigate whether (1) a difference exists in dislocation risk for DAA compared with posterior THA, (2) a difference exists in risk for specific revision reasons, and (3) the likelihood of adverse 90-day postoperative events differs.
METHODS: We conducted a cohort study using data from Kaiser Permanente's Total Joint Replacement Registry. Patients aged ≥18 years who underwent primary cementless THA for osteoarthritis with a highly cross-linked polyethylene liner were included (2009-2017). Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression was used to evaluate dislocation and cause-specific revision risks, and multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate 90-day emergency department visits, 90-day unplanned readmissions, and 90-day complications (including deep infection, deep vein thrombosis, and pulmonary embolism).
RESULTS: Of 38,399 primary THA, 6428 (16.7%) were DAA. All-cause revision at 2-years follow-up was 1.78% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.46-2.17) for DAA and 2.28% (95% CI = 2.11-2.45) for posterior. After adjusting for covariates, DAA had a lower risk of dislocation (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.39, 95% CI = 0.29-0.53), revision for instability (HR = 0.33, 95% CI = 0.18-0.58), revision for periprosthetic fracture (HR = 0.57, 95% CI = 0.34-0.96), and readmission (odds ratio = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.67-0.99) compared with posterior approach but a higher risk of revision for aseptic loosening (HR = 2.26, 95% CI = 1.35-3.79).
CONCLUSION: While the DAA associated with lower risks of dislocation and revision for instability and periprosthetic fracture, it is associated with a higher revision risk for aseptic loosening. Surgeons should discuss these risks with their patients.
METHODS: We conducted a cohort study using data from Kaiser Permanente's Total Joint Replacement Registry. Patients aged ≥18 years who underwent primary cementless THA for osteoarthritis with a highly cross-linked polyethylene liner were included (2009-2017). Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression was used to evaluate dislocation and cause-specific revision risks, and multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate 90-day emergency department visits, 90-day unplanned readmissions, and 90-day complications (including deep infection, deep vein thrombosis, and pulmonary embolism).
RESULTS: Of 38,399 primary THA, 6428 (16.7%) were DAA. All-cause revision at 2-years follow-up was 1.78% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.46-2.17) for DAA and 2.28% (95% CI = 2.11-2.45) for posterior. After adjusting for covariates, DAA had a lower risk of dislocation (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.39, 95% CI = 0.29-0.53), revision for instability (HR = 0.33, 95% CI = 0.18-0.58), revision for periprosthetic fracture (HR = 0.57, 95% CI = 0.34-0.96), and readmission (odds ratio = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.67-0.99) compared with posterior approach but a higher risk of revision for aseptic loosening (HR = 2.26, 95% CI = 1.35-3.79).
CONCLUSION: While the DAA associated with lower risks of dislocation and revision for instability and periprosthetic fracture, it is associated with a higher revision risk for aseptic loosening. Surgeons should discuss these risks with their patients.