TY - JOUR
T1 - Survival rates of anatomically shaped and tapered slip cemented femoral implants
T2 - an analysis of 76,281 femoral implants of the Dutch arthroplasty register (LROI)
AU - Heijnens, Luc Jm
AU - Heyligers, Ide C
AU - Boonen, Bert
AU - Spekenbrink-Spooren, Anneke
AU - van Haaren, Emil H
AU - Schotanus, Martijn Gm
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s) 2022.
PY - 2023/11
Y1 - 2023/11
N2 - INTRODUCTION: In cemented total hip arthroplasty (THA) various shapes and geometries of femoral implants are in use. Collarless, polished, and tapered (CPT) implants, and anatomically shaped (AS) implants are most commonly used. Due to their different design features, this might lead to different survival outcomes. In this register-based study, overall implant survival and short-term complications of CPT and AS cemented implants were evaluated.METHODS: Data of the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI) were used. Cemented femoral implants, which could be classified as CPT or AS were included in this study. Implants were excluded when no classification could be made or if implanted <100 times. Survival analyses were performed using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and multivariable Cox-proportional hazard analysis.RESULTS: 76,281 cemented THAs were included. At a mean of 5.1 years follow-up (SD 3.1, range 0-12 years), the overall survival of the AS implants was higher compared with the CPT implants, with a survival, of 99.2% and 99.0% respectively (log-rank; p < 0.001). Multivariable regression analysis revealed a higher rate for revision because of loosening of the AS implants (HR 2; CI, 1.4-3.1). AS implants had a lower rate for periprosthetic fractures compared with the CPT implants (HR 0.13; CI, 0.07-0.23).CONCLUSIONS: Both designs show excellent overall survival rates at short-term follow-up. There is a higher overall survival of AS implants when compared with CPT implants. Revision for implant loosening, however, was statistically significantly higher in AS implants when compared with the CPT implants.
AB - INTRODUCTION: In cemented total hip arthroplasty (THA) various shapes and geometries of femoral implants are in use. Collarless, polished, and tapered (CPT) implants, and anatomically shaped (AS) implants are most commonly used. Due to their different design features, this might lead to different survival outcomes. In this register-based study, overall implant survival and short-term complications of CPT and AS cemented implants were evaluated.METHODS: Data of the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI) were used. Cemented femoral implants, which could be classified as CPT or AS were included in this study. Implants were excluded when no classification could be made or if implanted <100 times. Survival analyses were performed using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and multivariable Cox-proportional hazard analysis.RESULTS: 76,281 cemented THAs were included. At a mean of 5.1 years follow-up (SD 3.1, range 0-12 years), the overall survival of the AS implants was higher compared with the CPT implants, with a survival, of 99.2% and 99.0% respectively (log-rank; p < 0.001). Multivariable regression analysis revealed a higher rate for revision because of loosening of the AS implants (HR 2; CI, 1.4-3.1). AS implants had a lower rate for periprosthetic fractures compared with the CPT implants (HR 0.13; CI, 0.07-0.23).CONCLUSIONS: Both designs show excellent overall survival rates at short-term follow-up. There is a higher overall survival of AS implants when compared with CPT implants. Revision for implant loosening, however, was statistically significantly higher in AS implants when compared with the CPT implants.
U2 - 10.1177/11207000221145150
DO - 10.1177/11207000221145150
M3 - Article
C2 - 36536533
SN - 1120-7000
VL - 33
SP - 1035
EP - 1042
JO - Hip International
JF - Hip International
IS - 6
M1 - 11207000221145150
ER -