What is the most appropriate comparator group to use in assessing the performance of primary total hip prostheses within the community?

Abstract

Background: There are variations in the performance of individual prostheses used in hip replacements. Some of which have unexpectedly higher revision rates – outliers. The Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) has established a standardised multi-stage approach for identifying these devices. This is done by comparing the revision rates of individual prostheses to all other prostheses in class, with the exception of large head metal-on-metal (LHMoM) prostheses. However, improvements in device design and performance over time have required a need to reconsider the comparator group. This study aimed to identify a more specific comparator to better reflect contemporary surgical practice. Methods: The time to first revision was estimated on the data of 413,417 primary total conventional hip replacements undertaken for osteoarthritis (OA) from 01 January 2003 to 31 December 2019. Survivorship analyses with stepwise exclusions were undertaken. The first exclusion was LHMoM, followed by other non-modern bearing surfaces (defined as all the bearing couples except metal or ceramic heads on cross-linked polyethylene and mixed ceramic-on-ceramic), and then devices with modular neck-stem design or used for specific purposes (incl. constrained, dual-mobility, and head size <28 mm). Lastly, all remaining prostheses previously identified as having a higher than anticipated rate of revision (HTARR) were also excluded. Results: These exclusions progressively reduced the cumulative percent revision (CPR) rate. The final comparator, which only includes satisfactory-performed prostheses of contemporary design and use, has a 10-year CPR of 4.30% (95% CI, 4.2–4.41) which is lower than 4.93% (95% CI, 4.84–5.02) for the current comparator used by the AOANJRR (all prostheses excluding LHMOM). Over the study period, 13 additional components were identified utilising the modified comparator. Conclusions: The calculation of the comparator revision rate should be re-evaluated to include only modern prosthesis constructs to ensure that poorly performing prostheses are identified early.