Top

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

Published in:

Open Access 01-09-2010 | Symposium: Complications of Hip Arthroplasty

Risk of Complication and Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty Among Medicare Patients with Different Bearing Surfaces

Authors: Kevin J. Bozic, MD, MBA, Kevin Ong, PhD, Edmund Lau, MS, Steven M. Kurtz, PhD, Thomas P. Vail, MD, Harry E. Rubash, MD, Daniel J. Berry, MD

Published in: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® | Issue 9/2010

Abstract

Background

To address the long-term problems of bearing surface wear and osteolysis associated with conventional metal-polyethylene (M-PE) total hip arthroplasty (THA), metal-metal (M-M), and ceramic-ceramic (C-C) bearings have been introduced. These bearing surfaces are associated with unique risks and benefits and higher costs. However the relative risks of these three bearings in an older population is unknown.

Questions/purposes

We compared the short-term risk of complication and revision THA among Medicare patients having a primary THA with metal-polyethylene (M-PE), metal-metal (M-M), and ceramic-ceramic (C-C) bearings.

Methods

We used the 2005 to 2007 100% Medicare inpatient claim files to perform a matched cohort analysis in three separate cohorts of THA patients (M-PE, M-M, and C-C) who were matched by age, gender, and US census region. Multivariate Cox proportional-hazards models were constructed to compare complication and revision THA risk among cohorts, adjusting for medical comorbidities, race, socioeconomic status, and hospital factors.

Results

After adjusting for patient and hospital factors, M-M bearings were associated with a higher risk of periprosthetic joint infection (hazard ratio, 3.03; confidence interval, 1.02–9.09) when compared with C-C bearings (0.59% versus 0.32%, respectively). There were no other differences among bearing cohorts in the adjusted risk of revision THA or any other complication.

Conclusions

The risk of short-term complication (including dislocation) and revision THA were similar among appropriately matched Medicare THA patients regardless of bearing surface. Hard-on-hard THA bearings are of questionable value in Medicare patients, given the higher cost associated with their use and uncertain long-term benefits in older patients.

Level of Evidence

Level II, prognostic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. HCUP Databases. Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP). 2007. Available at: http://hcupnet.ahrq.gov/. Accessed January 9, 2009.

Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry Web site. Hip and Knee Arthroplasty. Annual Report 2009. Available at: http://www.dmac.adelaide.edu.au/aoanjrr/publications.jsp. Accessed January 9, 2009.

Berger RA, Jacobs JJ, Quigley LR, Rosenberg AG, Galante JO. Primary cementless acetabular reconstruction in patients younger than 50 years old. 7- to 11-year results. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1997;344:216–226.CrossRefPubMed

Berry DJ, Harmsen WS, Cabanela ME, Morrey BF. Twenty-five-year survivorship of two thousand consecutive primary Charnley total hip replacements: factors affecting survivorship of acetabular and femoral components. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84:171–177.PubMed

Berry DJ, von Knoch M, Schleck CD, Harmsen WS. The cumulative long-term risk of dislocation after primary Charnley total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86:9–14.PubMed

Boardman DR, Middleton FR, Kavanagh TG. A benign psoas mass following metal-on-metal resurfacing of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006;88:402–404.CrossRefPubMed

Bozic KJ, Kurtz S, Lau E, Ong K, Chiu V, Vail TP, Rubash HE, Berry DJ. The epidemiology of bearing surface usage in total hip arthroplasty in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91:1614–1620.CrossRefPubMed

Bozic KJ, Kurtz SM, Lau E, Ong K, Vail TP, Berry DJ. The epidemiology of revision total hip arthroplasty in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91:128–133.CrossRefPubMed

Clarke IC, Good V, Williams P, Schroeder D, Anissian L, Stark A, Oonishi H, Schuldies J, Gustafson G. Ultra-low wear rates for rigid-on-rigid bearings in total hip replacements. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2000;214:331–347.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Clarke IC, Gustafson A. Clinical and hip simulator comparisons of ceramic-on-polyethylene and metal-on-polyethylene wear. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2000;379:34–40.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Clayton RA, Beggs I, Salter DM, Grant MH, Patton JT, Porter DE. Inflammatory pseudotumor associated with femoral nerve palsy following metal-on-metal resurfacing of the hip. A case report. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90:1988–1993.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Delaunay CP, Bonnomet F, Clavert P, Laffargue P, Migaud H. THA using metal-on-metal articulation in active patients younger than 50 years. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008;466:340–346.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Deyo RA, Cherkin DC, Ciol MA. Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databases. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45:613–619.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Eingartner C. Current trends in total hip arthroplasty. Ortop Traumatol Rehabil. 2007;9:8–14.PubMed

15.

Fisher J, Jin Z, Tipper J, Stone M, Ingham E. Tribology of alternative bearings. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;453:25–34.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Galvin A, Kang L, Tipper J, Stone M, Ingham E, Jin Z, Fisher J. Wear of crosslinked polyethylene under different tribological conditions. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2006;17:235–243.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Heisel C, Silva M, Schmalzried TP. Bearing surface options for total hip replacement in young patients. Instr Course Lect. 2004;53:49–65.PubMed

18.

Kim YH, Oh SH, Kim JS. Primary total hip arthroplasty with a second-generation cementless total hip prosthesis in patients younger than fifty years of age. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85:109–114.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Korovessis P, Petsinis G, Repanti M, Repantis T. Metallosis after contemporary metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty. Five to nine-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88:1183–1191.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Kurtz S, Ong K. Hard-on-hard bearings and highly crosslinked UHMWPE. In: Kurtz S, ed. The UHMWPE Biomaterials and Handbook: Ultra-High Molecular Weight Polyethylene in Total Joint Replacment and Medical Devices. Burlington, MA: Academic Press; 2009.

21.

Mendenhall S. 2009 Hip and Knee Implant Review. Orthopedic Network News. July 2009. Available at: www.orthopedicnetworknews.com. Accessed January 9, 2009.

22.

Mikhael MM, Hanssen AD, Sierra RJ. Failure of metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty mimicking hip infection. A report of two cases. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91:443–446.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Milosev I, Trebse R, Kovac S, Cor A, Pisot V. Survivorship and retrieval analysis of Sikomet metal-on-metal total hip replacements at a mean of seven years. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88:1173–1182.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Murray SB, Bates DW, Ngo L, Ufberg JW, Shapiro NI. Charlson Index is associated with one-year mortality in emergency department patients with suspected infection. Acad Emerg Med. 2006;13:530–536.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Ogino D, Kawaji H, Konttinen L, Lehto M, Rantanen P, Malmivaara A, Konttinen YT, Salo J. Total hip replacement in patients eighty years of age and older. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90:1884–1890.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Park YS, Moon YW, Lim SJ, Yang JM, Ahn G, Choi YL. Early osteolysis following second-generation metal-on-metal hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:1515–1521.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Schmalzried TP, Shepherd EF, Dorey FJ, Jackson WO, dela Rosa M, Fa’vae F, McKellop HA, McClung CD, Martell J, Moreland JR, Amstutz HC. The John Charnley Award. Wear is a function of use, not time. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2000;381:36–46.CrossRefPubMed

28.

Sexton S, Steiger R, Jackson M. Bearing surface and risk of revision due to dislocation after primary total hip arthroplasty. Paper #F584. Paper presented at: 10th EFORT Congress, 2009; Vienna. Available at: http://www.efort.org/cdrom2009/FreePaperContent.asp?Pid=F584. Accessed January 9, 2009.

29.

Soderman P, Malchau H, Herberts P, Zugner R, Regner H, Garellick G. Outcome after total hip arthroplasty: Part II. Disease-specific follow-up and the Swedish National Total Hip Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop Scand. 2001;72:113–119.CrossRefPubMed

Title: Risk of Complication and Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty Among Medicare Patients with Different Bearing Surfaces
Authors: Kevin J. Bozic, MD, MBA
Kevin Ong, PhD
Edmund Lau, MS
Steven M. Kurtz, PhD
Thomas P. Vail, MD
Harry E. Rubash, MD
Daniel J. Berry, MD
Publication date: 01-09-2010
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® / Issue 9/2010
Print ISSN: 0009-921X
Electronic ISSN: 1528-1132
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-010-1262-3

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Risk of Complication and Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty Among Medicare Patients with Different Bearing Surfaces

Abstract

Background

Questions/purposes

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Level of Evidence

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Questions/purposes

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Level of Evidence

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 9/2010

Incidence of Lateral Femoral Cutaneous Nerve Neuropraxia After Anterior Approach Hip Arthroplasty

The Role of Ultrasound in Clubfoot Treatment: Correlation with the Pirani Score and Assessment of the Ponseti Method

Squeaking in Metal-on-Metal Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasties

Failed Metal-on-Metal Hip Arthroplasties: A Spectrum of Clinical Presentations and Operative Findings

Nonadherence in Outpatient Thrombosis Prophylaxis with Low Molecular Weight Heparins after Major Orthopaedic Surgery

Histological Features of Pseudotumor-like Tissues From Metal-on-Metal Hips