Mortality and implant revision rates of hip arthroplasty in patients with osteoarthritis:registry based cohort study

Objectives To examine mortality and revision rates among patients with osteoarthritis undergoing hip arthroplasty and to compare these rates between patients undergoing cemented or uncemented procedures and to compare outcomes between men undergoing stemmed total hip replacements and Birmingham hip resurfacing. Design Cohort study. Setting National Joint Registry. Population About 275 000 patient records. Main outcome measures Hip arthroplasty procedures were linked to the time to any subsequent mortality or revision (implant failure). Flexible parametric survival analysis methods were used to analyse time to mortality and also time to revision. Comparisons between procedure groups were adjusted for age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, and complexity. Results As there were large baseline differences in the characteristics of patients receiving cemented, uncemented, or resurfacing procedures, unadjusted comparisons are inappropriate. Multivariable survival analyses identified a higher mortality rate for patients undergoing cemented compared with uncemented total hip replacement (adjusted hazard ratio 1.11, 95% confidence interval 1.07 to 1.16); conversely, there was a lower revision rate with cemented procedures (0.53, 0.50 to 0.57). These translate to small predicted differences in population averaged absolute survival probability at all time points. For example, compared with the uncemented group, at eight years after surgery the predicted probability of death in the cemented group was 0.013 higher (0.007 to 0.019) and the predicted probability of revision was 0.015 lower (0.012 to 0.017). In multivariable analyses restricted to men, there was a higher mortality rate in the cemented group and the uncemented group compared with the Birmingham hip resurfacing group. In terms of revision, the Birmingham hip resurfacings had a similar revision rate to uncemented total hip replacements. Both uncemented total hip replacements and Birmingham hip resurfacings had a higher revision rate than cemented total hip replacements. Conclusions There is a small but significant increased risk of revision with uncemented rather than cemented total hip replacement, and a small but significant increased risk of death with cemented procedures. It is not known whether these are causal relations or caused by residual confounding. Compared with uncemented and cemented total hip replacements, Birmingham hip resurfacing has a significantly lower risk of death in men of all ages. Previously, only adjusted analyses of hip implant revision rates have been used to recommend and justify use of cheaper cemented total hip implants. Our investigations additionally consider mortality rates and suggest a potentially higher mortality rate with cemented total hip replacements, which merits further investigation

Clinical features of soft tissue sarcomas.

The presenting features of 526 patients referred to an open access 'lumps and bumps' clinic were reviewed to try and identify whether the four cardinal features of soft tissue malignancy were in fact predictive of this. The features investigated were: size bigger than 5 cm, pain, increase in size, depth beneath the deep fascia. All of these factors were found to be associated more frequently with malignancy than a benign state. Using the summed weights of evidence method we have constructed a graph which will allow prediction of whether a lump is likely to be malignant or not

Predictors of time to revision and clinical outcomes following revision of metal-on-metal hip replacements for adverse reaction to metal debris

We undertook a retrospective cohort study to determine clinical outcomes following the revision of metal-on-metal (MoM) hip replacements for adverse reaction to metal debris (ARMD), and to identify predictors of time to revision and outcomes following revision. Between 1998 and 2012 a total of 64 MoM hips (mean age at revision of 57.8 years; 46 (72%) female; 46 (72%) hip resurfacings and 18 (28%) total hip replacements) were revised for ARMD at one specialist centre. At a mean follow-up of 4.5 years (1.0 to 14.6) from revision for ARMD there were 13 hips (20.3%) with post-operative complications and eight (12.5%) requiring re-revision. The Kaplan–Meier five-year survival rate for ARMD revision was 87.9% (95% confidence interval 78.9 to 98.0; 19 hips at risk). Excluding re-revisions, the median absolute Oxford hip score (OHS) following ARMD revision using the percentage method (0% best outcome and 100% worst outcome) was 18.8% (interquartile range (IQR) 7.8% to 48.3%), which is equivalent to 39/48 (IQR 24.8/48 to 44.3/48) when using the modified OHS. Histopathological response did not affect time to revision for ARMD (p = 0.334) or the subsequent risk of re-revision (p = 0.879). Similarly, the presence or absence of a contralateral MoM hip bearing did not affect time to revision for ARMD (p = 0.066) or the subsequent risk of re-revision (p = 0.178). Patients revised to MoM bearings had higher rates of re-revision (five of 16 MoM hips re-revised; p = 0.046), but those not requiring re-revision had good functional results (median absolute OHS 14.6% or 41.0/48). Short-term morbidity following revision for ARMD was comparable with previous reports. Caution should be exercised when choosing bearing surfaces for ARMD revisions. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:1600–9. </jats:p