Survival of the Exeter V40 short revision (44/00/125) stem when used in primary total hip arthroplasty
| Autor: | Jonathan T. Evans, Omer Salar, Sarah L. Whitehouse, Adrian Sayers, Michael R. Whitehouse, Timothy Wilton, Matthew J. W. Hubble |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2023 |
| Předmět: | |
| Zdroj: | The Bone & Joint Journal. :504-510 |
| ISSN: | 2049-4408 2049-4394 |
| DOI: | 10.1302/0301-620x.105b5.bjj-2022-1124.r1 |
| Popis: | AimsThe Exeter V40 femoral stem is the most implanted stem in the National Joint Registry (NJR) for primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). In 2004, the 44/00/125 stem was released for use in ‘cement-in-cement’ revision cases. It has, however, been used ‘off-label’ as a primary stem when patient anatomy requires a smaller stem with a 44 mm offset. We aimed to investigate survival of this implant in comparison to others in the range when used in primary THAs recorded in the NJR.MethodsWe analyzed 328,737 primary THAs using the Exeter V40 stem, comprising 34.3% of the 958,869 from the start of the NJR to December 2018. Our exposure was the stem, and the outcome was all-cause construct revision. We stratified analyses into four groups: constructs using the 44/00/125 stem, those using the 44/0/150 stem, those including a 35.5/125 stem, and constructs using any other Exeter V40 stem.ResultsIn all 328,737 THAs using an Exeter V40 stem, the revision estimate was 2.8% (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.7 to 2.8). The 44/00/125 stem was implanted in 2,158 primary THAs, and the ten-year revision estimate was 4.9% (95% CI 3.6 to 6.8). Controlling for age, sex, year of operation, indication, and American Society of Anesthesiologists grade demonstrated an increased overall hazard of revision for constructs using the 44/00/125 stem compared to constructs using other Exeter V40 femoral stems (hazard ratio 1.8 (95% CI 1.4 to 2.3)).ConclusionAlthough the revision estimate is within the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence ten-year benchmark, survivorship of constructs using the 44/00/125 stem appears to be lower than the rest of the range. Adjusted analyses will not take into account ‘confounding by indication’, e.g. patients with complex anatomy who may have a higher risk of revision. Surgeons and patients should be reassured but be aware of the observed increased revision estimate, and only use this stem when other implants are not suitable.Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(5):504–510. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|