Short-stem hip arthroplasty in Australia and the Netherlands: a comparison of 12,680 cases between the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) and the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2023.18491Keywords:
AOANJRR, Hip revision arthroplasty, LROI, Short stem, Total hip arthroplastyAbstract
Background and purpose: We compared the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) and the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI) regarding patient, prosthesis, and procedure characteristics as well as revision rates for uncemented short-stem total hip arthroplasties (THAs).
Patients and methods: All THAs with an uncemented short-stemmed femoral component performed between 2009 and 2021 were included from the AOANJRR (n = 9,328) and the LROI (n = 3,352). Kaplan–Meier survival analyses and multivariable Schemper’s weighted Cox regression analyses with data from 2009–2021 and 2015–2021 were performed with overall revision as endpoint.
Results: In Australia, the proportion of male patients (51% vs. 40%), patients with ASA III–IV score (30% vs. 3.7%), BMI ≥ 30.0 (39% vs. 19%), and femoral heads of 36 mm (58% vs. 20%) were higher than in the Netherlands. Short-stem THAs in Australia and the Netherlands had comparable 10-year revision rates (3.4%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.9–4.0 vs. 4.8%, CI 3.7–6.3). Multivariable Cox regression analyses with data from 2009–2021 showed a higher risk for revision of short-stem THAs performed in the Netherlands (HR 1.8, CI 1.1–2.8), whereas the risk for revision was comparable (HR 0.9, CI 0.5–1.7) when adjusted for more potential confounders using data from 2015–2021.
Conclusion: Short-stem THAs in Australia and the Netherlands have similar crude and adjusted revision rates, which are acceptable at 10 years of follow-up.
Downloads
References
AOANJRR. Hip, knee & shoulder arthroplasty: 2022 annual report. Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry; 2022. Available from: https://aoanjrr.sahmri.com/annual-reports-2022.
Van Veghel M H W, Hannink G, Van Oldenrijk J, Van Steenbergen L N, Schreurs B W. A comparison of uncemented short versus standard stem length in total hip arthroplasty: results from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop 2023; 94: 330-5. doi: 10.2340/17453674.2023.13652. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2023.13652
Falez F, Casella F, Papalia M. Current concepts, classification, and results in short stem hip arthroplasty. Orthopedics 2015; 38: S6-13. doi: 10.3928/01477447-20150215-50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3928/01477447-20150215-50
Patel R M, Stulberg S D. The rationale for short uncemented stems in total hip arthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am 2014; 45: 19-31. doi: 10.1016/j.ocl.2013.08.007. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocl.2013.08.007
van Oldenrijk J, Molleman J, Klaver M, Poolman R W, Haverkamp D. Revision rate after short-stem total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review of 49 studies. Acta Orthop 2014; 85: 250-8. doi: 10.3109/17453674.2014.908343. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2014.908343
Khanuja H S, Banerjee S, Jain D, Pivec R, Mont M A. Short bone-conserving stems in cementless hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2014; 96: 1742-52. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.M.00780. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.M.00780
Bayliss L E, Culliford D, Monk AP, Glyn-Jones S, Prieto-Alhambra D, Judge A, et al. The effect of patient age at intervention on risk of implant revision after total replacement of the hip or knee: a population-based cohort study. Lancet 2017; 389: 1424-30. doi: 10.1016/S01406736(17)30059-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30059-4
de Steiger R N, Graves S E. Orthopaedic registries: the Australian experience. EFORT Open Rev 2019; 4: 409-15. doi: 10.1302/20585241.4.180071. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/2058-5241.4.180071
van Steenbergen L N, Denissen G A, Spooren A, van Rooden S M, van Oosterhout F J, Morrenhof J W, et al. More than 95% completeness of reported procedures in the population-based Dutch Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop 2015; 86: 498-505. doi: 10.3109/17453674.2015.1028307. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2015.1028307
LROI. Annual report 2022. Landelijke Registratie Orthopedische Interventies; 2022. Available from: https://www.lroi-report.nl/.
Lidder S, Epstein D J, Scott G. A systematic review of short metaphyseal loading cementless stems in hip arthroplasty. Bone Joint J 2019; 101-B: 502-11. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.101B5.BJJ-2018-1199.R1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.101B5.BJJ-2018-1199.R1
LROI. LROI Implant Library — Hip. Landelijke Registratie Orthopedische Interventies; 2022. Available from: https://golive3.gopublic.nl/media/www.lroi.nl/2022/04/625522c726f17.lroi-implant-library-hip.pdf.
van Steenbergen L N, Makela K T, Kärrholm J, Rolfson O, Overgaard S, Furnes O, et al. Total hip arthroplasties in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI) and the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA): comparison of patient and procedure characteristics in 475,685 cases. Acta Orthop 2021; 92: 15-22. doi: 10.1080/17453674.2020.1843875. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2020.1843875
Schemper M, Wakounig S, Heinze G. The estimation of average hazard ratios by weighted Cox regression. Stat Med 2009; 28: 2473-89. doi: 10.1002/sim.3623. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.3623
Silman A J, Combescure C, Ferguson R J, Graves S E, Paxton E W, Frampton C, et al. International variation in distribution of ASA class in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty and its influence on mortality: data from an international consortium of arthroplasty registries. Acta Orthop 2021; 92: 304-10. doi: 10.1080/17453674.2021.1892267. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2021.1892267
Kamp M C, Liu W Y, Goosen J H M, Rijnen W H C, van Steenbergen L N, van der Weegen W, et al. Mismatch in capture of periprosthetic joint infections between the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI) and a detailed regional periprosthetic joint infection registry. J Arthroplasty 2022; 37: 126-31. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2021.09.001. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2021.09.001
Sinagra Z P, Davis J S, Lorimer M, de Steiger R N, Graves S E, Yates P, et al. The accuracy of reporting of periprosthetic joint infection to the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. Bone Jt Open 2022; 3: 367-73. doi: 10.1302/2633-1462.35.BJO2022-0011.R1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/2633-1462.35.BJO-2022-0011.R1
Steinbruck A, Grimberg A W, Elliott J, Melsheimer O, Jansson V. Short versus conventional stem in cementless total hip arthroplasty: an evidence-based approach with registry data of mid-term survival. Orthopade 2021; 50: 296-305. doi: 10.1007/s00132-021-04083-y. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00132-021-04083-y
van Smeden M, Lash T L, Groenwold R H H. Reflection on modern methods: five myths about measurement error in epidemiological research. Int J Epidemiol 2020; 49: 338-47. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyz251. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyz251
AOANJRR. AOA PROMs Pilot Project: Final report. 2020. Available from: https://aoanjrr.sahmri.com/documents/10180/681914/AOANJRR+PROMs+Pilot+Final+Report.
Labek G, Janda W, Agreiter M, Schuh R, Bohler N. Organisation, data evaluation, interpretation and effect of arthroplasty register data on the outcome in terms of revision rate in total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop 2011; 35: 157-63. doi: 10.1007/s00264-010-1131-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-010-1131-4
Additional Files
Published
How to Cite
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Mirthe H W van Veghel, Gerjon Hannink, Peter L Lewis, Carl Holder, Liza N van Steenbergen, B Willem Schreurs
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
