Cumulative risk of revision after primary total hip arthroplasty in registries internationally: systematic review and meta-analysis of selected hip stems and cups.
Christophe Combescure, James A Smith, Christophe Barea, Lotje A Hoogervorst, Rob Nelissen, Perla J Marang-van de Mheen, Anne Lübbeke
{"title":"Cumulative risk of revision after primary total hip arthroplasty in registries internationally: systematic review and meta-analysis of selected hip stems and cups.","authors":"Christophe Combescure, James A Smith, Christophe Barea, Lotje A Hoogervorst, Rob Nelissen, Perla J Marang-van de Mheen, Anne Lübbeke","doi":"10.1530/EOR-2024-0020","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The objective was to investigate the consistency in cumulative revision rates (CRRs) for a selection of total hip arthroplasty cups and stems across national/regional hip arthroplasty registries worldwide.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Ten cups and ten stems from total hip systems were randomly selected. Two frequently used implants across registries were added, totalling 11 cups and 11 stems. CRRs and 95% CIs were extracted from the latest annual registry reports using these implants. CRRs were pooled for each cup or stem, and differences between cup-stem combinations and between registries were investigated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>CRRs were available for ten cups and eight stems from eight registries, totalling 552,148 cups and 727,447 stems. Follow-up was 1-20 years. The 5-year CRR pooled for all cups was 2.9% (95% CI: 2.3-3.6) and for all stems, 3.0% (95% CI: 2.4-3.8). Homogeneous (consistent) CRRs with respect to both associated implant and country were observed for two cups and three stems. Significant differences in CRR were identified in one cup by associated implant only, in one cup by registry only, and in two cups and four stems for both. Sparse data prevented evaluation of four cups and one stem.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Registries' annual reports provide a large amount of publicly available information on CRRs of specific implants. These CRRs can be synthesised to improve the assessment of implant performance over time. Our CRR analysis represents a promising approach to detect implants with a consistent low- or high-risk pattern across registries.</p>","PeriodicalId":48598,"journal":{"name":"Efort Open Reviews","volume":"10 5","pages":"277-285"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12061013/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Efort Open Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1530/EOR-2024-0020","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: The objective was to investigate the consistency in cumulative revision rates (CRRs) for a selection of total hip arthroplasty cups and stems across national/regional hip arthroplasty registries worldwide.
Methods: Ten cups and ten stems from total hip systems were randomly selected. Two frequently used implants across registries were added, totalling 11 cups and 11 stems. CRRs and 95% CIs were extracted from the latest annual registry reports using these implants. CRRs were pooled for each cup or stem, and differences between cup-stem combinations and between registries were investigated.
Results: CRRs were available for ten cups and eight stems from eight registries, totalling 552,148 cups and 727,447 stems. Follow-up was 1-20 years. The 5-year CRR pooled for all cups was 2.9% (95% CI: 2.3-3.6) and for all stems, 3.0% (95% CI: 2.4-3.8). Homogeneous (consistent) CRRs with respect to both associated implant and country were observed for two cups and three stems. Significant differences in CRR were identified in one cup by associated implant only, in one cup by registry only, and in two cups and four stems for both. Sparse data prevented evaluation of four cups and one stem.
Conclusion: Registries' annual reports provide a large amount of publicly available information on CRRs of specific implants. These CRRs can be synthesised to improve the assessment of implant performance over time. Our CRR analysis represents a promising approach to detect implants with a consistent low- or high-risk pattern across registries.
期刊介绍:
EFORT Open Reviews publishes high-quality instructional review articles across the whole field of orthopaedics and traumatology. Commissioned, peer-reviewed articles from international experts summarize current knowledge and practice in orthopaedics, with the aim of providing systematic coverage of the field. All articles undergo rigorous scientific editing to ensure the highest standards of accuracy and clarity.
This continuously published online journal is fully open access and will provide integrated CME. It is an authoritative resource for educating trainees and supports practising orthopaedic surgeons in keeping informed about the latest clinical and scientific advances.
One print issue containing a selection of papers from the journal will be published each year to coincide with the EFORT Annual Congress.
EFORT Open Reviews is the official journal of the European Federation of National Associations of Orthopaedics and Traumatology (EFORT) and is published in partnership with The British Editorial Society of Bone & Joint Surgery.