Secondary Logo

Institutional members access full text with Ovid®

Share this article on:

What Is the Risk of Revision Surgery in Hydroxyapatite-coated Femoral Hip Stems? Findings From a Large National Registry

Inacio, Maria C., PhD; Lorimer, Michelle, BS; Davidson, David C., MBBS; De Steiger, Richard N., MBBS; Lewis, Peter L., MBBS; Graves, Stephen E., MBBS, DPhil

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®: December 2018 - Volume 476 - Issue 12 - p 2353–2366
doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000000513
CLINICAL RESEARCH

Background Despite wide adoption of hydroxyapatite (HA)-coated femoral stems in THA, no studies have found differences in the risk of revision surgery with its use or investigated the interaction of different prosthesis designs with stem coating.

Questions/purposes The purpose of this study was to evaluate the risk of revision in THAs with HA-coated stems compared with non-HA-coated. To achieve this purpose, we asked: (1) What is the difference in risk of revision of THAs with HA-coated femoral stems compared with non-HA-coated using an aggregate analysis? (2) What is the difference in risk of revision of THAs with HA-coated femoral stems compared with non-HA-coated for five prosthesis types that used the same femoral and acetabular component combination but where the femoral stem had both a HA and non-HA coating option?

Methods The Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry analyzed cementless primary THA registered between September 1, 1999, and December 31, 2014. Of the 147,645 cases that fit our selection criteria, 81.1% (N = 119,673) had HA-coated stems. Overall (that is, all procedures with any prostheses in the registry) and five prosthesis designs where both an HA-coated stem and non-HA-coated stem exist (Zimmer’s VerSys®/Trilogy® [N = 3924], Biomet’s Mallory-Head®/Mallory-Head [N = 2538], Smith & Nephew’s SL-Plus/EP Fit-Plus [N = 2028], Biomet’s Taperloc®/Exceed [N = 1668], and Biomet’s Taperloc/Mallory-Head [N = 1240]) were evaluated. Revision surgery was the outcome of interest. Survival analyses were conducted and hazard ratios (HRs) were adjusted for age, sex, bearing surface, femoral head size, and acetabular component HA coating.

Results In the overall cohort, HA stems had a lower any-cause revision risk after 6 months (HR, 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72-0.95; p = 0.007). However, the risk of revision varied when we evaluated the effect of HA on revision for specific prothesis combinations that had both HA and non-HA options for the femoral stem. VerSys/Trilogy, Mallory-Head/Mallory-Head, Taperloc/Exceed, and Taperloc/Mallory-Head did not have a lower risk of any-cause revision with HA-coated stems compared with non-HA-coated. Only the SL-Plus/EP Fit-Plus subgroup showed a lower risk of revision for loosening (HR, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.06-0.44 between 0 and 7 years; p < 0.001) with HA- compared with non-HA-coated stems, but this was observed after an early (< 6 months) higher risk of revision for any reason (HR, 2.88; 95% CI, 1.15-7.21; p = 0.024).

Conclusions Overall, HA coating of femoral stems was found to be associated with a 17% lower risk of revision for any reason. However, the lower risk of revision associated with HA was not consistent for all prosthesis designs where both HA- and non-HA-coated femoral stem versions were available. Some HA-coated stems have higher revision rates compared with their non-HA-coated versions. Our findings suggest that the effect of HA coating on revision risk varies depending on prosthesis design.

Level of Evidence Level II, therapeutic study.

M. C. Inacio, M. Lorimer, South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute (SAHMRI), Adelaide, South Australia, Australia

M. C. Inacio, M. Lorimer, D. C. Davidson, R. N. De Steiger, P. L. Lewis, S. E. Graves, Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR), Adelaide, South Australia, Australia

M. C. Inacio, PO Box 11060, Adelaide, SA 5001, email: maria.inacio@sahmri.com

Each author certifies that neither he or she, nor any member of his or her immediate family, has funding or commercial associations (consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article.

All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request.

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® neither advocates nor endorses the use of any treatment, drug, or device. Readers are encouraged to always seek additional information, including FDA approval status, of any drug or device before clinical use.

Each author certifies that his or her institution approved the human protocol for this investigation and that all investigations were conducted in conformity with ethical principles of research.

This work was performed at the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.

Received December 06, 2017

Accepted September 10, 2018

© 2018 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins LWW
You currently do not have access to this article

To access this article:

Note: If your society membership provides full-access, you may need to login on your society website