TUHH Open Research
Help
  • Log In
    New user? Click here to register.Have you forgotten your password?
  • English
  • Deutsch
  • Communities & Collections
  • Publications
  • Research Data
  • People
  • Institutions
  • Projects
  • Statistics
  1. Home
  2. TUHH
  3. Publications
  4. Re-revision risk of modular and monobloc revision stems after revision hip arthroplasty
 
Options

Re-revision risk of modular and monobloc revision stems after revision hip arthroplasty

Citation Link: https://doi.org/10.15480/882.15332
Publikationstyp
Journal Article
Date Issued
2025-06-01
Sprache
English
Author(s)
Morlock, Michael  
Biomechanik M-3  
Wu, Y.
Grimberg, Alexander W.  
Günther, Klaus-Peter  
Perka, Carsten  
TORE-DOI
10.15480/882.15332
TORE-URI
https://hdl.handle.net/11420/56032
Journal
Bone & Joint Open  
Volume
6
Issue
6
Start Page
1
End Page
6
Citation
Bone and Joint Open 6 (1): 1-6 (2025)
Publisher DOI
10.1302/2633-1462.66.BJO-2024-0201.R1
Scopus ID
2-s2.0-105008094232
Aims Modular revision stem fracture is a rare but difficult complication after hip arthroplasty revision. The purpose of this German Arthroplasty Registry (EPRD)-based study was to investigate whether the overall re-revision rate and the re-revision reasons of modular revision stems compared with monobloc stems are different. Methods A total of 291 re-revisions occurring within five years after implantation of a revision stem (n = 2,039) documented in the EPRD were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Cox regression. Stem type (modular: n = 1,026, monobloc: n = 1,013) and revision reason were investigated as independent variables, while BMI, sex, age, hospitals’ annual revision volume, and Elixhauser score were treated as confounding variables. Cases with an infection at index surgery were analyzed separately. Results Re-revision risk after five years was similar for either stem type (modular: 18.7% (95% CI 15.9 to 21.9); monobloc: 15.6% (95% CI 13.2 to 18.4); p = 0.200). One stem fracture of a modular revision stem was reported. The main reasons for re-revision were infection (modular/monobloc: 50%/60% of all revisions; p = 0.200), dislocation (19.8%/9.6%; p = 0.045), and loosening (12.2%/ 11.4%; p > 0.999). An Elixhauser score of 4 and above was associated with a higher hazard ratio (HR) for re-revision for either stem type (modular/monobloc: HR 2.01; p = 0.026/HR 2.44; p = 0.004), as well as a BMI category above 25/40 (modular/monobloc: HR 1.73 to 3.25; all p < 0.025/HR 3.61; p < 0.001). An infected index surgery increased the re-revision risk after one year to 26.0% (95% CI 22.2% to 30.3%) compared with 8.3% for noninfected cases (95% CI 7.0% to 9.8%) (p < 0.001) independent of stem type. Conclusion A high BMI increases the HR for revision for either stem design but not due to mechanical implant failure. Infection at the index operation increases re-revision risk significantly, and is also the dominant reason for re-revision independent of stem type.
DDC Class
617: Surgery, Regional Medicine, Dentistry, Ophthalmology, Otology, Audiology
519: Applied Mathematics, Probabilities
Publication version
publishedVersion
Lizenz
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name

2633-1462.66.BJO-2024-0201.R1.pdf

Type

Main Article

Size

692.09 KB

Format

Adobe PDF

TUHH
Weiterführende Links
  • Contact
  • Send Feedback
  • Cookie settings
  • Privacy policy
  • Impress
DSpace Software

Built with DSpace-CRIS software - Extension maintained and optimized by 4Science
Design by effective webwork GmbH

  • Deutsche NationalbibliothekDeutsche Nationalbibliothek
  • ORCiD Member OrganizationORCiD Member Organization
  • DataCiteDataCite
  • Re3DataRe3Data
  • OpenDOAROpenDOAR
  • OpenAireOpenAire
  • BASE Bielefeld Academic Search EngineBASE Bielefeld Academic Search Engine
Feedback