Corrosion Concerns? Trends in Metal-on-Polyethylene Total Hip Arthroplasty Revision Rates and Comparisons Against Ceramic-on-Polyethylene up to 10 Years of Follow-Up.
retrospective_cohort · Level III
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 32475785.
- Also identified by DOI 10.1016/j.arth.2020.05.007.
- No licence information is recorded for this record.
- Because redistribution is not established, this page shows the abstract only. Follow the links below for the full text.
Abstract
We compared the revision risk between metal-on-polyethylene (MOP) and ceramic-on-polyethylene (COP) total hip arthroplasty patients and evaluated temporal changes in short-term revision risks for MOP patients. Primary MOP (n = 9480) and COP (n = 3620) total hip arthroplasties were evaluated from the Medicare data set (October 2005 to December 2015) for revision risk, with up to 10 years of follow-up using multivariate analysis. Temporal change in the short-term revision risk for MOP was evaluated (log-rank and Wilcoxon tests). Revision incidence was 3.8% for COP and 4.3% for MOP. MOP short-term revision risk did not change over time (P ≥ .844 at 1 year and .627 at 2 years). Dislocation was the most common reason for revision (MOP: 23.5%; COP: 24.8%). Overall adjusted revision risks were not different between MOP and COP up to 10 years of follow-up (P ≥ .181). Concerns with corrosion for metal heads do not appear to result in significantly elevated revision risk for MOP at up to 10 years. Corrosion does not appear as a primary reason for revision compared to other mechanisms.
Medical subject headings
- Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip
- Hip Prosthesis
Anatomy
- hip