No functional benefit of larger femoral heads and alternative bearings at 6 months following primary hip replacement.

Background and purpose - There has been a recent trend towards the use of greater femoral head sizes in an attempt to improve function and enhance stability after primary hip replacement. This has been associated with the use of alternative bearings, theoretically to reduce wear and improve implant...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Acta Orthopaedica Vol. 86; no. 1; pp. 32 - 41
Autores principales: Jameson, Simon S, Mason, James M, Baker, Paul N, Gregg, Paul J, Deehan, David J, Reed, Mike R
Formato: research tables/charts Journal Article
Publicado: Medical Journals Sweden AB Feb2015
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=103878800&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: ccm
    uiTerm: 103878800
    longDbName: CINAHL Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    dissinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        17453674
        1BVL
      jtl: Acta Orthopaedica
      issn: 17453674
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: Feb2015
      vid: 86
      iid: 1
      pid: 59195
      pub: Medical Journals Sweden AB
    artinfo:
      ui:
        103878800
        100576960
        10.3109/17453674.2014.972259
        NLM25301437
        103878800
      ppf: 32
      ppct: 9
      formats:
        fmt:
          @attributes:
            type: P
      tig:
        atl: No functional benefit of larger femoral heads and alternative bearings at 6 months following primary hip replacement.
      aug:
        au:
          Jameson, Simon S
          Mason, James M
          Baker, Paul N
          Gregg, Paul J
          Deehan, David J
          Reed, Mike R
        affil: The National Joint Registry for England and Wales; School of Medicine, Pharmacy and Health, Durham University, Queen's Campus, Stockton-on-Tees
      sug:
        subj:
          Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip
          Surgical Equipment and Supplies
          Treatment Outcomes
          Osteoarthritis, Hip Surgery
          Human
          Postoperative Complications
          Confidence Intervals
          Prospective Studies
          United Kingdom
          Odds Ratio
          Data Analysis Software
          Descriptive Statistics
          One-Way Analysis of Variance
          Analysis of Covariance
          Kruskal-Wallis Test
          Chi Square Test
          Multiple Logistic Regression
          Male
          Female
          Adult
          Middle Age
          Aged
          Aged, 80 and Over
          Funding Source
          Questionnaires
          Adult: 19-44 years
          Middle Aged: 45-64 years
          Aged: 65+ years
          Aged, 80 & over
          Male
          Female
      ab: Background and purpose - There has been a recent trend towards the use of greater femoral head sizes in an attempt to improve function and enhance stability after primary hip replacement. This has been associated with the use of alternative bearings, theoretically to reduce wear and improve implant longevity. Methods - We examined the influence of these variables on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for a consecutive series of primary hip replacements using National Joint Registry (NJR) and PROMs-linked data. To minimize the confounding influence of implant design factors, the single most commonly used brand in England and Wales (DePuy Corail Pinnacle) was examined. Improvement in patient hip-specific outcomes (Oxford hip score, OHS), general health outcomes (Euroqol, EQ-5D), and rates of self-reported complications (bleeding, wound problems, re-admission, and reoperation) were compared for different head sizes (28-mm, 32-mm, and 36-mm) and bearings (metal-on-polyethylene (MoP), ceramic-on-polyethylene (CoP), and ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC)), adjusting for differences in case mix. Results - At a mean follow-up of 7 months, improvements in OHS and EQ5D index were similar for 28-mm and 36-mm heads. A 32-mm head was associated with poorer function (OHS: 20, 99% CI: 19-21, p = 0.002; EQ5D index: 0.39, 99% CI: 0.36-0.42, p = 0.004), although these small differences may not be of clinical importance. There were no statistically significant benefits of either CoP or CoC bearings compared to a MoP bearing. Complication rates were similar within comparisons of head sizes or bearings. Interpretation - In this short-term study, we did not find any functional benefits of larger head sizes or alternative bearings, after adjusting for other influences. We question their use in routine primary hip replacement given the lack of evidence of improved long-term survival in the literature.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype:
        research
        tables/charts
        Journal Article
      ougenre: Article
    language: English
    refInfo:
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N