Revision per component

Hip » Survival » Revision per component » Cemented primary THA

TABLE Cumulative revision percentages of cemented primary total hip arthroplasties by prosthesis component combination of patients who underwent a THA for osteoarthritis in the Netherlands in 2007-2019 (n=74,095)

Hip » Survival » Revision per component » Uncemented primary THA

TABLE Cumulative revision percentages of uncemented primary total hip arthroplasties by prosthesis component combination of patients who underwent a THA for osteoarthritis in the Netherlands in 2007-2019 (n=179,994)

Hip » Survival » Revision per component » Bone cement THA

TABLE Cumulative revision percentages of the most frequently types of bone cement by type of mixing system in 2019, in primary total hip arthroplasties in the Netherlands in 2007-2019

Cumulative revision percentage (95% CI)
Bone cement n 1yr 3yr 5yr 7yr 10yr 11yr
Separately packed bone cement components (n=81,999)  
Palacos R+G 62,615 1.5 (1.4-1.6) 2.4 (2.3-2.5) 3.0 (2.8-3.1) 3.4 (3.3-3.6) 4.2 (4.0-4.5) 4.5 (4.2-4.8)
Palacos MV+G 3,463 0.9 (0.6-1.2) 1.5 (1.0-1.9) 2.1 (1.6-2.7) 3.4 (2.6-4.3) n.a. n.a.
Refobacin Bone Cement R 5,827 0.9 (0.6-1.1) 1.7 (1.3-2.0) 2.0 (1.7-2.4) 2.6 (2.1-3.0) 3.2 (2.6-3.8) 3.3 (2.7-4.0)
Simplex ABC EC 2,635 2.4 (1.8-2.9) 3.5 (2.8-4.3) 4.4 (3.6-5.3) 5.2 (4.2-6.2) 7.5 (5.6-9.3) 7.9 (5.9-10.0)
Subiton G 27 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Bone cement pre-packed in a vacuum mixing system (n=22,650)  
Palacos R+G 6,651 2.1 (1.8-2.5) 2.8 (2.3-3.3) 3.6 (2.4-4.8) n.a. n.a. n.a.
Refobacin Bone Cement R 11,757 2.0 (1.7-2.3) 2.8 (2.5-3.1) 3.4 (3.0-3.8) 4.0 (3.5-4.5) n.a. n.a.
Refobacin Plus Bone Cement 3,731 1.0 (0.7-1.4) 1.9 (1.4-2.3) 2.3 (1.7-2.8) 2.8 (2.1-3.4) 2.9 (2.2-3.6) 2.9 (2.2-3.6)

Please note: Revision is defined as any change (insertion, replacement and/or removal) of one or more components of the prosthesis.
n.a. if <50 cases were at risk; THA: total hip arthroplasty; CI: confidence interval; IQR: interquartile range.

© LROI 2020

Results must be interpreted with caution. Patient characteristics like age and diagnosis, as well as procedure characteristics like the experience of the surgeon performing the procedure, femoral head size and articulation of the prosthesis may have influenced the cumulative revision percentages.

Hip » Survival » Revision per component » Resurfacing hip arthroplasty

FIGURE Cumulative revision percentages of primary resurfacing hip arthroplasties by type of prosthesis of patients who underwent a RHA in the Netherlands in 2007-2019 (n=2,887)

H64afbeelding.png

TABLE Cumulative revision percentages of primary resurfacing hip arthroplasties by type of prosthesis

Cumulative revision percentage (95% CI)
Type of prosthesis Total primary RHAs (n) Median (IQR) age (yr) Total RAs (n) 1yr 3yr 5yr 7yr 10yr 11yr
All resurfacing hip arthroplasties 2,887 54 (49-59) 346 1.7 (1.2-2.1) 4.4 (3.7-5.2) 7.7 (6.7-8.6) 10.2 (9.1-11.4) 11.8 (10.6-13.0) 12.2 (11.0-13.4)
Adept 471 54 (48-59) 53 2.6 (1.1-4.0) 4.5 (2.6-6.3) 6.6 (4.4-8.9) 9.4 (6.8-12.1) 10.5 (7.7-13.3) 11.0 (8.1-13.9)
ASR 274 53 (47-56) 75 4.0 (1.7-6.3) 9.1 (5.7-12.5) 18.3 (13.7-22.9) 22.7 (17.7-27.7) 26.8 (21.6-32.1) 27.3 (22.0-32.5)
BHR 853 54 (48-58) 75 0.5 (0.0-0.9) 2.9 (1.8-4.1) 5.5 (3.9-7.0) 7.7 (5.6-9.5) 8.8 (6.8-10.7) 9.0 (7.0-11.0)
Conserve Plus 338 55 (50-60) 30 0.6 (0.0-1.4) 3.3 (1.4-5.2) 6.3 (3.7-8.9) 7.8 (4.9-10.7) 9.3 (6.1-12.4) 9.3 (6.1-12.4)
Cormet 212 58 (51-61) 16 0.0 (0.0-0.0) 1.4 (0.0-3.1) 3.4 (0.9-5.9) 5.4 (2.3-8.5) 7.5 (3.8-11.1) 8.1 (4.3-12.0)
Durom 341 54 (50-59) 55 1.5 (0.2-2.7) 7.1 (4.3-9.8) 11.5 (8.1-14.9) 13.9 (10.2-17.6) 15.4 (11.6-19.3) 16.2 (12.2-20.1)
Mitch 101 57 (51-61) 10 5.0 (0.7-9.2) 5.9 (1.3-10.5) 9.9 (4.1-15.8) 9.9 (4.1-15.8) 9.9 (4.1-15.8) n.a.
Recap Magnum Shells 171 55 (49-59) 19 2.9 (0.4-5.4) 4.7 (1.5-7.8) 6.5 (2.8-10.1) 8.3 (4.1-12.4) 11.4 (6.6-16.2) 11.4 (6.6-16.2)

Please note: n.a. if <50 cases were at risk; RHA: resurfacing hip arthroplasty; CI: confidence interval; IQR: interquartile range.

© LROI 2020

Results must be interpreted with caution. Patient characteristics like age and diagnosis, as well as procedure characteristics like the experience of the surgeon performing the procedure, femoral head size and articulation of the prosthesis may have influenced the cumulative revision percentages.