A comparison of surgical approaches for primary hip replacement: a cohort study of patient outcome measures (PROMs) and early revision using linked national databases.
No Thumbnail Available
Authors
Reed, Mike
Issue Date
2013
Type
Language
Keywords
Alternative Title
Abstract
The posterior and lateral approaches to primary hip arthroplasty were compared using national data from England and Wales. Specific component combinations of the most commonly used cemented and cementless implant brands were analysed separately. There was no significant difference between the approaches for all-cause revision risk (cemented: P?=?0.726, cementless: P?=?0.295) and revision for dislocation (P?=?0.176, P?=?0.695) at 12 months following 37,593 procedures, after adjusting for patient and surgical variables. Analysis of 3881 linked episodes found the posterior approach was associated with significantly higher improvement in function (Oxford Hip Score: 20.8 versus 18.9, P?<?0.001 (cemented procedures); 21.7 versus 20.2, P?=?0.008 (cementless), EQ5D index: 0.416 versus 0.383, P?=?0.003; 0.431 versus 0.384, P?=?0.003). The posterior approach may offer a functional benefit (albeit small clinically), without increased revision risk.
Description
Citation
Jameson, S., Mason, J., Baker, P. et al. (2013) A comparison of surgical approaches for primary hip replacement: a cohort study of patient outcome measures (PROMs) and early revision using linked national databases. Journal of Arthroplasty; 29 (6) : 1248-1255.e1.
Publisher
Journal of Arthroplasty
License
Journal
Volume
Issue
PubMed ID
ISSN
0883-5403