title: Total hip arthroplasty for primary osteoarthrosis in younger patients in the Finnish arthroplasty register. 4,661 primary replacements followed for 0-22 years.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Many studies have found a higher risk of revision after hip arthroplasty in younger patients. We evaluated the population-based survival of total hip arthroplasty (THA) in patients under 55 years of age and the factors affecting survival.
  
  
  METHODS
  The Finnish Arthroplasty Register was established in 1980, and 74,492 primary THAs were entered into the register between 1980 and 2001. 4,661 of these were evaluated, all of which had been performed for primary osteoarthrosis on patients under 55 years of age.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Proximally circumferentially porous-coated uncemented stems implanted between 1991 and 2001 had a 10-year survival rate of 99 (95% CI 98.5-99.6)% with aseptic loosening as endpoint. The risk of stem revision due to aseptic loosening was higher in cemented stems than in proximally porous-coated (RR 5.5, p < 0.001) or HA-coated (RR 6.6, p = 0.01) uncemented stems implanted during the same period. According to Cox regression analysis of cups implanted 1991-2001, the risk of revision for all-polyethylene cemented cups was 3.0 times as high as that for press-fit porous-coated uncemented cups with aseptic loosening as endpoint (p = 0.01). However, when the endpoint was defined as any revision (including exchange of liner), there was no longer any difference between these two concepts, the 10-year survival rates being 94 (92.1-95.5)% for press-fit porous-coated uncemented cups and 93 (88.5-97.6)% for all-polyethylene cemented cups (p = 0.9).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Modern uncemented stems seem to have better resistance to aseptic loosening than cemented stems in younger patients. Thus, for younger patients, uncemented proximally circumferentially porous- and HA-coated stems are the implants of choice. Press-fit porous- and HA-coated uncemented cups may have better endurance against aseptic loosening than cemented cups in younger patients. However, when all revisions (including exchange of liner) are taken into account, the survival of modern uncemented cups is no better than that of all-poly cemented cups.
authors.affiliation: Department of Orthopedics, Surgical Hospital, Helsinki University Central Hospital, Helsinki, Finland. antti.eskelinen@fimnet.fi
authors.forename: Antti
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Eskelinen
authors.forename: Ville
authors.initials: V
authors.lastname: Remes
authors.forename: Ilkka
authors.initials: I
authors.lastname: Helenius
authors.forename: Pekka
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Pulkkinen
authors.forename: Juha
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Nevalainen
authors.forename: Pekka
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Paavolainen
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D019644:Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000379:methods / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D001843:Bone Cements; D005260:Female; D005387:Finland / Q000453:epidemiology; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006622:Hip Prosthesis / Q000592:standards; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D015207:Osteoarthritis, Hip / Q000601:surgery*; D011474:Prosthesis Design; D011475:Prosthesis Failure; D012042:Registries; D012086:Reoperation; D012307:Risk Factors; D016896:Treatment Outcome
chemical_list: D001843:Bone Cements