Browse by author
Lookup NU author(s): Professor David Deehan
Full text for this publication is not currently held within this repository. Alternative links are provided below where available.
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. (C) 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Author(s): Jameson SS, Mason J, Baker P, Gregg PJ, McMurtry IA, Deehan DJ, Reed MR
Publication type: Article
Publication status: Published
Journal: Journal of Arthroplasty
Print publication date: 04/12/2013
ISSN (print): 0883-5403
ISSN (electronic): 1532-8406
Publisher: Churchill Livingstone
Altmetrics provided by Altmetric