Failure rates for 4762 revision total hip arthroplasties in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register.

We present the results for 4762 revision total hip arthroplasties with no previous infection in the hip, which were reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register between 1987 and 2003. The ten-year failure rate for revised prostheses was 26% (95% CI 25 to 26). Cox regression analyses were undertaken separately for acetabular and femoral revision components. Cemented revision components without allograft was the reference category. For acetabular components, we found a significantly reduced risk of failure for uncemented revisions both with (relative risk (RR) = 0.66; 95% CI 0.43 to 0.99) and without (RR = 0.37; 95% CI 0.22 to 0.61) allograft. For femoral components, we found a significantly reduced risk of failure for uncemented revisions, both with (RR = 0.27; 95% CI 0.16 to 0.46) and without (RR = 0.22; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.46) unimpacted allograft. This reduced risk of failure also applied to cemented revision components with allograft (RR = 0.53; 95% CI 0.33 to 0.84) and with impaction bone grafting (RR = 0.34; 95% CI 0.19 to 0.62). Revision prostheses have generally inferior results when compared with primary prostheses. Recementation without allograft, and uncemented revision with bone impaction, were associated with worse results than the other revision techniques which we studied.

[1]  I. Jakim,et al.  Long-term results of revision total hip arthroplasty. , 1990, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[2]  C. Engh,et al.  Outcome of revision hip arthroplasty done without cement. , 1994, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[3]  P. D. Wilson,et al.  Revision total hip arthroplasty. , 1982, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[4]  E. Korn,et al.  Effective sample sizes for confidence intervals for survival probabilities. , 1987, Statistics in medicine.

[5]  J. Callaghan,et al.  Revision of total hip arthroplasty in octogenarians. , 1995, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[6]  J. Varmarken,et al.  Unsatisfactory results after repeated revision of hip arthroplasty. 61 cases followed for 5 (1-10) years. , 1992, Acta orthopaedica Scandinavica.

[7]  M Schemper,et al.  A note on quantifying follow-up in studies of failure time. , 1996, Controlled clinical trials.

[8]  P. Herberts,et al.  Cemented revision hip arthroplasty. A multicenter 5-9-year study of 204 first revisions for loosening. , 1992, Acta orthopaedica Scandinavica.

[9]  R. Jinnah,et al.  Revision of Aseptic Loose Total Hip Arthroplasties , 1982, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

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

[11]  P. Herberts,et al.  A multicenter 10-year study of cemented revision total hip arthroplasty in patients younger than 55 years old. A follow-up report. , 1994, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[12]  A. Timperley,et al.  Impacted cancellous allografts and cement for revision total hip arthroplasty. , 1993, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[13]  P. Herberts,et al.  The Swedish Total Hip Replacement Register , 2002, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[14]  R. Huiskes,et al.  Acetabular and Femoral Reconstruction With Impacted Graft and Cement , 1996, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[15]  J. Klimkiewicz,et al.  Revision total hip arthroplasty in patients with avascular necrosis. , 1999, Orthopedics.

[16]  P Herberts,et al.  Long-term registration has improved the quality of hip replacement: A review of the Swedish THR Register comparing 160,000 cases , 2000, Acta orthopaedica Scandinavica.

[17]  Elena Losina,et al.  Rates and Outcomes of Primary and Revision Total Hip Replacement in the United States Medicare Population , 2003, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[18]  R. Burnett,et al.  Extensively porous-coated femoral stems in revision hip arthroplasty: rationale and results. , 2002, American journal of orthopedics.

[19]  O. Svensson,et al.  Revision total hip arthroplasty using third-generation cementing technique. , 2000, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[20]  V. Goldberg.  Revision of failure acetabular components with cementless acetabular components. , 2002, American journal of orthopedics.

[21]  O. Aalen,et al.  Statistical analysis of repeated events forming renewal processes. , 1991, Statistics in medicine.

[22]  C. Engh,et al.  Extensively porous-coated femoral revision for severe femoral bone loss: minimum 10-year follow-up. , 2002, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[23]  B. Wroblewski,et al.  Long-term results of cemented Charnley revision arthroplasty for fractured stem. , 1994, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[24]  E. Ornstein.  Hip revisions with impacted morselized allograft bone and cement , 2002, Acta orthopaedica Scandinavica. Supplementum.

[25]  E. Garcia-Cimbrelo.  Porous-coated cementless acetabular cups in revision surgery: a 6- to 11-year follow-up study. , 1999, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[26]  V. Goldberg.  Revision total hip arthroplasty using a cementless modular femoral hip design. , 2002, American journal of orthopedics.

[27]  P. D. Di Cesare,et al.  Reconstruction of the Failed Femoral Component and Proximal Femoral Bone Loss in Revision Hip Surgery , 2000, The Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.

[28]  J. Palmgren,et al.  Estimation of Multivariate Frailty Models Using Penalized Partial Likelihood , 2000, Biometrics.