Abstract
Introduction
Reverse hybrid total hip replacement (THR) offers significant theoretical benefits but is uncommonly used. Our primary objective was to evaluate implant survival with all cause revision and revision for aseptic loosening of either component as endpoints.
Patients/Materials & Methods
Data was collected prospectively on 1, 088 (988 patients) consecutive reverse hybrid THRs. Mean patient age was 69.3 years (range, 21–94) and mean follow-up was 8.2 years (range, 5–11.3). No patients were lost to follow-up. Overall, 194 (17.8%) procedures were performed in patients under 60 years, 666 (61.1%) were performed in female patients and 349 (32.1%) were performed by a trainee. Acetabular components were ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene in 415 (38.1%) hips, highly cross-linked polyethylene in 669 (61.5%) hips and vitamin E stabilised polyethylene in 4 (0.4%) hips. Femoral stems were collared in 757 (69.7%) hips and collarless in 331 (30.3%) hips. Femoral head sizes were 28 mm in 957 (87.9%) hips and 32 mm in 131 (12.1%) hips. Survival analysis was performed using Kaplan Meier methodology. Log rank tests were used to asses differences in survival by age, gender, head size and surgeon grade.
Results
Ten-year implant survival (122 hips at risk) was 97.2% (95% CI 95.8–98.1%) for all cause revision (Figure 1), 100% for aseptic acetabular loosening and 99.6% (95% CI 99.0–99.9%) for aseptic stem loosening (Figure 2). There was no difference in implant survival by age (p = 0.39), gender (p = 0.68), head size (p = 0.76) or surgeon grade (p = 0.20) for all cause revision. There was no difference in survival by gender (p = 0.12), head size (p = 0.38) or surgeon grade (p = 0.76) for stem revision. Four (0.4%) stems failed at mean 2.5 years (range, 0.6–4.8) because they were undersized. These were associated with patient age under 60 years (p = 0.015).
Discussion
This is the largest reported study on the outcomes of reverse hybrid THR in a consecutive series of patients at medium to long term follow-up. Cemented acetabular components are less costly than uncemented cups and offer other significant benefits such as improved fixation in osteoporotic or pathological bone, reduced risk of intraoperative periprosthetic fracture, easier revision and local antibiotic delivery which can reduce deep infection rates. Advantages of uncemented stems over cemented stems include biological fixation, shorter operating times, fewer adverse pulmonary events and reduced proximal stress shielding. Our results indicate high implant survival rates at ten-year follow-up with low rates of aseptic loosening (0.4%). Meticulous surgical technique is required to avoid stem undersizing which may lead to early failure particularly in younger patients.
Conclusion
This study confirms that reverse hybrid THR offers highly successful outcomes, irrespective of age, gender, head size and surgeon grade.
For any figures and tables, please contact the authors directly.
