Radiographic signs and hip pain 5 years after THA with a cemented stem predict future revision for aseptic loosening: a prospective cohort study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2023.26190Keywords:
aseptic loosening, Hip, Hip pain, Implants, Prediction, Radiological imaging, Surrogate outcomeAbstract
Background and purpose: We aimed to evaluate the long-term predictive value of radiographic abnormality and/or hip pain assessed 5 years following primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) and the occurrence of revision for aseptic loosening between 5 and 25 years postoperatively.
Patients and methods: We included all primary THAs performed between 1996 and 2011 (same uncemented cup, polyethylene-ceramic bearing, 28 mm head, cemented stem) and prospectively enrolled in the institutional registry, for whom baseline and follow-up radiographs were available. At 5 years radiographically we assessed femoral osteolysis and/or stem migration. Pain was evaluated with the Harris Hip pain subscore. Kaplan–Meier survival and Cox regression analyses were performed.
Results: 1,317 primary THAs were included. 25 THAs (2%) were revised for aseptic stem loosening. Any abnormal radiographic sign at 5 years was present in 191 THAs (14%). Occasional hip pain was reported by 20% and slight to severe pain by 12% of patients at 5 years. In patients < 60 years, 10 of the 12 later revised for aseptic stem loosening had abnormal radiographs at 5 years vs. 5 of the 13 later revised in those ≥ 60 years. Hazard ratios (HR) were 34 (95% confidence interval [CI] 7–155) in younger vs. 4 (CI 1–11) in the older group. HR for association of hip pain at 5 years with future revision was 3 (CI 1–5).
Conclusion: The presence of abnormal radiographic signs 5 years after THA was strongly associated with later revision for aseptic stem loosening, especially in patients < 60 years. The association between pain at 5 years and future revision was much weaker.
Downloads
References
Hopper R H Jr, Ho H, Sritulanondha S, Williams A C, Engh C A Jr. Otto Aufranc Award: Crosslinking reduces THA wear, osteolysis and revision rates at 15-year followup compared with noncrosslinked polyethylene. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2018; 476(2): 279-90. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2023.01.028. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999.0000000000000036
Karachalios T, Komnos G, Koutalos A. Total hip arthroplasty: survival and modes of failure. EFORT Open Rev 2018; 3(5): 232-9. doi: 10.1302/2058-5241.3.170068. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/2058-5241.3.170068
Feng X, Gu J, Zhou X. Primary total hip arthroplasty failure: aseptic loosening remains the most common cause of revision. Am J Transl Res 2022; 14(10): 7080–9.
Prokopetz J J Z, Losina E, Bliss R L, Wright J, Baron J A, Katz J N. Risk factors for revision of primary total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2012; 13: 251. doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-13-251. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-13-251
Flugsrud G B, Nordsletten L, Espehaug B, Havelin L I, Meyer H E. The effect of middle-age body weight and physical activity on the risk of early revision hip arthroplasty: a cohort study of 1,535 individuals. Acta Orthop 2007; 78(1): 99-107. doi: 10.1080/17453670610013493. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17453670610013493
Schmalzried T P, Shepherd E F, Dorey F J, Jackson W O, dela Rosa M, Fa’vae F, et al. The John Charnley Award: wear is a function of use, not time. Clin Orthop 2000; 381: 36-46. doi: 10.1097/00003086-200012000-00005. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-200012000-00005
Malchau H, Bragdon C R, Muratoglu O K. The stepwise introduction of innovation into orthopedic surgery: the next level of dilemmas. J Arthroplasty 2011; 26(6): 825-31. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2010.08.007. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2010.08.007
Cipriano A, Ioannidis J P A, Rothwell P M, Glasziou P, Tianjing L, Hernandez A F, et al. Generating comparative evidence on new drugs and devices after approval. Lancet 2020; 395(10228): 998-1010. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)33177-0. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)33177-0
Malak T T, Broomfield J A J, Palmer A J R, Hopewell S, Carr A, Brown C, et al. Surrogate markers of long-term outcome in primary total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review. Bone Joint Res 2016; 5: 206-14. doi: 10.1302/2046-3758.56.2000568. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/2046-3758.56.2000568
Krismer M, Biederman R, Stöckl B, Fischer M, Bauer R, Haid C. The prediction of failure of the stem in THR by measurement of early migration using EBRA-FCA. Einzel-Bild-Roentgen-Analyse-femoral component analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1999; 81(2): 273-80. doi: 10.1302/0301-620x.81b2.8840. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.81B2.0810273
Streit M R, Haeussler D, Bruckner T, Proctor T, Innmann M M, Merle C, et al. Early migration predicts aseptic loosening of cementless femoral stems: a long-term study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2016; 474: 1697-706. doi: 10.1007/s11999-016-4857-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-016-4857-5
Kobayashi A, Donnelly W J, Scott G, Freeman M A. Early radiological observations may predict the long-term survival of femoral hip prostheses. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1997; 79(4): 583-9. doi: 10.1302/0301-620x.79b4.7210. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.79B4.0790583
Rothwell A G, Hooper G J, Hobbs A, Frampton C M. An analysis of the Oxford hip and knee scores and their relationship to early joint revision in the New Zealand Joint Registry. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 2010; 92-B: 413-8. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.92B3.22913. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.92B3.22913
Eneqvist T, Nemes S, Bülow E, Mohaddes M, Rolfson O. Can patient-reported outcomes predict re-operations after total hip replacement? Int Orthop 2018; 42(2): 273-9. doi: 10.1007/s00264-017-3711-z. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-017-3711-z
Devane P, Horne G, Gehling D. Oxford hip scores at 6 months and 5 years are associated with total hip revision within the subsequent 2 years. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2013; 471: 3870–4. doi: 10.1007/s11999-013-2880-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-013-2880-3
Johnsen S P, Sørensen H T, Lucht U, Søballe K, Overgaard S, Pedersen A B. Patient-related predictors of implant failure after primary total hip replacement in the initial, short- and long-terms. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2006; 88(10): 1303-8. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.88B10.17399. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.88B10.17399
Gwynne-Jones D P, Lash H W R, James A W, Iosua E E, Matheson J A. The Morscher press-fit acetabular component: an independent long-term review at 18–22 years. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32(8): 2444-9. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2017.02.052. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2017.02.052
Newson R B. Comparing the predictive powers of survival models. Stata J 2010; 10(3): 339-58. doi: 10.1177/1536867X1001000303. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867X1001000303
Clauss M, Bolliger L, Brandenberger D, Ochsner P E, Ilchmann T. Similar effect of stem geometry on radiological changes with 2 types of cemented straight stem. Acta Orthop 2016; 87(2): 120-5. doi: 10.3109/17453674.2015.1104153. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2015.1104153
Engh C A, Massin P, Suthers K E. Roentgenographic assessment of the biologic fixation of porous-surfaced femoral components. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1990; 257: 107-28. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-199008000-00022
Garavaglia G, Gonzalez A, Barea C, Peter R, Hoffmeyer P, Lübbeke A, et al. Short stem total hip arthroplasty with the direct anterior approach demonstrates suboptimal fixation. Int Orthop 2021; 45(3): 575-83. doi: 10.1007/s00264-020-04910-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-020-04910-5
van der Voort P, Bijls P G, Nieuwenhuijse M, Jasper J, Fiocco M, Plevier J W M, et al. Early subsidence of shape-closed hip arthroplasty stems is associated with late revision: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 24 RSA studies and 56 survival studies. Acta Orthop 2015; 86(5): 575-85. doi: 10.3109/17453674.2015.1043832. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2015.1043832
Singh J A, Schleck C, Harmsen S, Lewallen D. Clinically important improvement thresholds for Harris hip score and its ability to predict revision risk after primary total hip arthroplasty. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2016; 17: 256. doi: 10.1186/s12891-016-1106-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-016-1106-8
Roder C, Eggli S, Aebi M, Busato A. The validity of clinical examination in the diagnosis of loosening of components in total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2003; 85(1): 37-44. doi: 10.1302/0301-620x.85b1.13367. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.85B1.13367
Callary S A, Solomon L B, Holubowycz O T, Campbell D G, Howie D W. Accuracy of methods to measure femoral head penetration within metal-backed acetabular components. J Orthop Res 2017; 35(5): 988-96. doi: 10.1002/jor.23356. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jor.23356
De Geofroy B, Ghabi A, Attas J, Micicoi L, Lopez M, de Dompsure R B, et al. Can hip function be assessed with self-report questionnaires? Feasibility study of a French self-report version of the Harris Hip and Merle d’Aubigné scores. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2023 Nov 1: 103746. doi: 10.1016/j.otsr.2023.103746. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2023.103746
Christensen R, Ranstam J, Overgaard S, Wagner P. Guidelines for a structured manuscript: statistical methods and reporting in biomedical research journals. Acta Orthop 2023; 94: 243-9. doi: 10.2340/17453674.2023.11656. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2023.11656
Additional Files
Published
How to Cite
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Anne Lübbeke, Christophe Barea, Matthieu Zingg, Nicolas Lauper, Didier Hannouche, Guido Garavaglia
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
