![Sample our Medicine, Dentistry, Nursing & Allied Health journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5944/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Medicine-Dentistry-Nursing-Allied-Health.jpg"})
Abstract
On the basis of data from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register during the period 1987-1993, we have compared times to revision for 10 different cemented total hip prostheses. A total of 11,169 patients, with 12,179 primary total hip replacements (THRs), performed with high viscosity cement for primary arthrosis and followed for a maximum of 6.4 years, were included in this study.
The Kaplan-Meier estimate of the overall percentage revised after 5 years was 2.5 (95% Confidence Interval: 2.1-3.0). For the Charnley prosthesis (n6,694), 2.9% were revised after 5 years (95% CI: 2.3-3.4). Using Cox regression to adjust for gender, age, type of cement and use of systemic antibiotic prophylaxis, the Charnley prosthesis was compared with the 9 other brands. The revision rate for the SpectrodlTH combination (Spectron acetabulum, ITH femur) (n 1,034) was only 0.35 (p 0.04) times that of the Charnley prostheses. The EliteKharnley combination (Elite acetabulum, Charnley femur) (n 507) and the Mirller Type prosthesis (n 11 6) showed poorer results with failure rates 2.3 (p 0.01) and 2.7 times (p 0.04) that of Charnley, respectively.
Although the overall results for cemented THRs in general were good, clinically important differences in revision rates were demonstrated among the cemented prosthesis brands. Our findings underline the need for careful evaluation of different total hip replacements.