Is reverse hybrid hip replacement the solution?

Background and purpose Reverse hybrid hip replacement uses a cemented all-polyethylene cup and an uncemented stem. Despite increasing use of this method in Scandinavia, there has been very little documentation of results. We have therefore analyzed the results from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register (NAR), with up to 10 years of follow-up. Patients and methods The NAR has been collecting data on total hip replacement (THR) since 1987. Reverse hybrid hip replacements were used mainly from 2000. We extracted data on reverse hybrid THR from this year onward until December 31, 2009, and compared the results with those from cemented implants over the same period. Specific cup/stem combinations involving 100 cases or more were selected. In addition, only combinations that were taken into use in 2005 or earlier were included. 3,963 operations in 3,630 patients were included. We used the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression analysis for estimation of prosthesis survival and relative risk of revision. The main endpoint was revision for any cause, but we also performed specific analyses on different reasons for revision. Results We found equal survival to that from cemented THR at 5 years (cemented: 97.0% (95% CI: 96.8–97.2); reverse hybrid: 96.7% (96.0–97.4)) and at 7 years (cemented: 96.0% (95.7–96.2); reverse hybrid: 95.6% (94.4–96.7)). Adjusted relative risk of revision of the reverse hybrids was 1.1 (0.9–1.4). In patients under 60 years of age, we found similar survival of the 2 groups at 5 and 7 years, with an adjusted relative risk of revision of reverse hybrids of 0.9 (0.6–1.3) compared to cemented implants. Interpretation With a follow-up of up to 10 years, reverse hybrid THRs performed well, and similarly to all-cemented THRs from the same time period. The reverse hybrid method might therefore be an alternative to all-cemented THR. Longer follow-up time is needed to evaluate whether reverse hybrid hip replacement has any advantages over all-cemented THR.

[1]  R. D. de Steiger,et al.  Competing risks survival analysis applied to data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry , 2010, Acta orthopaedica.

[2]  J. Kärrholm,et al.  Increased risk of revision of acetabular cups coated with hydroxyapatite , 2010, Acta orthopaedica.

[3]  Johan Kärrholm,et al.  Uncemented and cemented primary total hip arthroplasty in the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register , 2010, Acta orthopaedica.

[4]  A. Eskelinen,et al.  Cementless total hip arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis in patients aged 55 years and older , 2010, Acta orthopaedica.

[5]  J. Ranstam,et al.  Statistical analysis of arthroplasty register data , 2010, Acta orthopaedica.

[6]  B. Espehaug,et al.  Increasing risk of revision due to deep infection after hip arthroplasty , 2009, Acta orthopaedica.

[7]  K. Søballe,et al.  Inferior Survival of Hydroxyapatite versus Titanium-coated Cups at 15 Years , 2009, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[8]  B. Espehaug,et al.  18 years of results with cemented primary hip prostheses in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register , 2009, Acta orthopaedica.

[9]  B. Espehaug,et al.  A clinical and radiographic 13-year follow-up study of 138 Charnley hip arthroplasties in patients 50–70 years old: Comparison of university hospital data and registry data , 2008, Acta orthopaedica.

[10]  S. Vollset,et al.  Medium- and long-term performance of 11,516 uncemented primary femoral stems from the Norwegian arthroplasty register. , 2007, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[11]  Birgitte Espehaug,et al.  Registration completeness in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register , 2006, Acta orthopaedica.

[12]  B. Espehaug,et al.  Validation of data in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register and the Norwegian Patient Register : 5,134 primary total hip arthroplasties and revisions operated at a single hospital between 1987 and 2003 , 2005, Acta orthopaedica.

[13]  A. Tonino.  HA particles can be released from well-fixed HA-coated stems , 2003, Acta orthopaedica Scandinavica.

[14]  Birgitte Espehaug,et al.  Antibiotic prophylaxis in total hip arthroplastyEffects of antibiotic prophylaxis systemically and in bone cement on the revision rate of 22,170 primary hip replacements followed 0-14 years in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register , 2003, Acta orthopaedica Scandinavica.

[15]  B. Espehaug,et al.  The performance of two hydroxyapatite-coated acetabular cups compared with Charnley cups. From the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. , 2002, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[16]  B. Espehaug,et al.  The type of cement and failure of total hip replacements. , 2002, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[17]  C. Johansson,et al.  HA particles can be released from well-fixed HA-coated stems , 2002, Acta orthopaedica Scandinavica.

[18]  S. McNally,et al.  The results at nine to twelve years of the use of a hydroxyapatite-coated femoral stem. , 2000, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[19]  B. Espehaug,et al.  The Norwegian Arthroplasty Register: 11 years and 73,000 arthroplasties , 2000, Acta orthopaedica Scandinavica.

[20]  Birgitte Espehaug,et al.  The Norwegian Arthroplasty Register , 2000 .

[21]  A. Alho,et al.  Cemented Lubinus and Furlog total hip endoprosthesis: a 12-year follow-up study of 175 hips comparing the cementing technique , 2000, Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery.

[22]  B. Espehaug,et al.  The effect of the type of cement on early revision of Charnley total hip prostheses. A review of eight thousand five hundred and seventy-nine primary arthroplasties from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. , 1995, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[23]  B. Espehaug,et al.  The Norwegian arthroplasty register. A survey of 17,444 hip replacements 1987-1990. , 1993, Acta orthopaedica Scandinavica.