Display Settings:

Format

Send to:

Choose Destination
We are sorry, but NCBI web applications do not support your browser and may not function properly. More information
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008 Oct;90(10):2160-70. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.G.00870.

Total hip arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis in patients fifty-five years of age or older. An analysis of the Finnish arthroplasty registry.

Author information

  • 1keijo.makela@tyks.fi

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

According to the long-term results obtained from the Scandinavian arthroplasty registries, cemented total hip replacement has been the treatment of choice for osteoarthritis of the hip in elderly patients. The aim of the present study was to analyze population-based survival rates of the cemented and cementless total hip replacements performed for primary osteoarthritis in patients fifty-five years of age or older in Finland.

METHODS:

From 1980 to 2004, a total of 50,968 primary total hip replacements that met our criteria were entered in the Finnish Arthroplasty Registry. The success rate of different implant groups was analyzed. The implants included were classified in one of the following four groups: implants with a cementless, straight, proximally circumferentially porous-coated stem and a modular, porous-coated press-fit cup (cementless group 1); implants with a cementless, anatomic, proximally circumferentially porous-coated and/or hydroxyapatite-coated stem with a modular, porous-coated and/or hydroxyapatite-coated press-fit cup (cementless group 2); a hybrid total hip replacement consisting of a cemented stem combined with a modular, press-fit cup (the hybrid group); and a cemented loaded-taper or composite-beam stem combined with an all-polyethylene cup (the cemented group).

RESULTS:

Cementless total hip replacements, as well as cementless stems and cups analyzed separately, had a significantly reduced risk of revision for aseptic loosening compared with cemented hip replacements (p < 0.001). When revision for any reason was the end point in survival analyses, however, there were no significant differences among the groups. In patients between the ages of fifty-five and sixty-four years, the fifteen-year survival rates of the two cementless groups (78% and 80%) were higher than that of the cemented group (71%) with revision for aseptic loosening as the end point. In patients who were sixty-five to seventy-four years old, the fifteen-year survival rate of the implants in cementless group 1 was 94%, while cemented total hip replacements had an 85% survival rate. In patients who were seventy-five years old or more, no significant differences were detected among the total hip replacement groups; all of them had survivorship of >90% at ten years.

CONCLUSIONS:

In patients who were fifty-five years of age or older, the long-term survival of cementless total hip replacements was comparable with that of cemented replacements. In patients who were fifty-five to seventy-four years old, straight porous-coated cementless stems had better long-term survival than the cemented stems. In patients who were seventy-five years of age and older, there were no significant differences in the results. Multiple wear-related revisions of the cementless cups in the present study indicate that excessive polyethylene wear was a major clinical problem with modular cementless cups in all age groups.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:

Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions to Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

PMID:
18829914
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Silverchair Information Systems
    Loading ...
    Write to the Help Desk