This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal My Folders Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Hooper, G. J. Articles by Frampton, C. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Hooper, G. J. Articles by Frampton, C.

Revision following cemented and uncemented primary total hip replacement

A SEVEN-YEAR ANALYSIS FROM THE NEW ZEALAND JOINT REGISTRY

¹ Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Musculoskeletal Medicine Christchurch Public Hospital, Private Bag, PO Box 4710 Christchurch, New Zealand.
² Auckland Medical School, Private Bag, Auckland, New Zealand.
³ Department of Medicine Christchurch Medical School, PO Box 4710, Christchurch, New Zealand.

Correspondence should be sent to Professor G. J. Hooper at Leinster Orthopaedic Centre, 151 Leinster Road, Christchurch, New Zealand; e-mail: ghooper{at}leinsterortho.co.nz

We have reviewed the rate of revision of fully cemented, hybrid and uncemented primary total hip replacements (THRs) registered in the New Zealand Joint Registry between 1999 and December 2006 to determine whether there was any statistically significant difference in the early survival and reason for revision in these different types of fixation. The percentage rate of revision was calculated per 100 component years and compared with the reason for revision, the type of fixation and the age of the patients.

Of the 42 665 primary THRs registered, 920 (2.16%) underwent revision requiring change of at least one component. Fully-cemented THRs had a lower rate of revision when considering all causes for failure (p < 0.001), but below the age of 65 years uncemented THRs had a lower rate (p < 0.01). The rate of revision of the acetabular component for aseptic loosening was less in the uncemented and hybrid groups compared with that in the fully cemented group (p < 0.001), and the rate of revision of cemented and uncemented femoral components was similar, except in patients over 75 years of age in whom revision of cemented femoral components was significantly less frequent (p < 0.02). Revision for infection was more common in patients aged below 65 years and in cemented and hybrid THRs compared with cementless THRs (p < 0.001). Dislocation was the most common cause of revision for all types of fixation and was more frequent in both uncemented acetabular groups (p < 0.001). The experience of the surgeon did not affect the findings.

Although cemented THR had the lowest rate of revision for all causes in the short term (90 days), uncemented THR had the lowest rate of aseptic loosening in patients under 65 years of age and had rates comparable with international rates of aseptic loosening in those over 65 years.