↓ Skip to main content

Exchangeable Femoral Neck (Dual-Modular) THA Prostheses Have Poorer Survivorship Than Other Designs: A Nationwide Cohort of 324,108 Patients

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
66 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Exchangeable Femoral Neck (Dual-Modular) THA Prostheses Have Poorer Survivorship Than Other Designs: A Nationwide Cohort of 324,108 Patients
Published in
Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, February 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11999-017-5260-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sandrine Colas, Assia Allalou, Antoine Poichotte, Philippe Piriou, Rosemary Dray-Spira, Mahmoud Zureik

Abstract

Exchangeable neck stems, defined as those with a dual taper (that is, a modular junction between the femoral head and the femoral neck and an additional junction between the neck and the stem body), were introduced in THA to improve restoration of joint biomechanics (restoring anteversion, offset, and limb length) and reduce the risk of dislocation. However exchangeable necks have been reported to result in adverse effects such as stem fractures and acute local tissue reaction. Whether they result in a net improvement to or impairment of reconstructive survivorship remains controversial. (1) To compare the prosthetic survivorship and all-cause revision risk of exchangeable femoral neck THAs versus fixed neck THAs, taking known prosthetic revision risk factors into account; and (2) to compare the cause-specific revision risk of exchangeable femoral neck THAs versus fixed neck THAs, adjusting for known prosthetic risk factors. Using French national health-insurance databases, we identified all French patients older than 40 years who underwent primary THA from 2009 through 2012. To ensure accuracy of the data, we considered only beneficiaries of the general insurance scheme (approximately 77% of the population). Characteristics of the prosthesis and the patients receiving an exchangeable femoral neck THA were compared with those receiving a fixed femoral neck THA (defined as femoral stem with only the head being exchangeable). Revision was the event of interest. Followup started on the date the THA was performed, until the patient experienced revision, died, was lost to followup, or until the followup period ended (December 31, 2014), whichever came first. Competing risk THA survivorship was calculated and compared (purpose 1), as were cause-specific Cox regression models (purpose 2). The study cohort included 324,108 individuals with a mean age of 77 years. A total of 24% underwent THA for acute trauma, and 3% of the group received an exchangeable neck THA. During the median 45-month followup (mean, 42 months; minimum, 1 day; maximum, 6 years), 11,968 individuals underwent prosthetic revision. The cumulative revision incidence was 6.5% (95% CI, 5.8%-7.3%) for exchangeable neck THAs versus 4.7% (95% CI, 4.6%-4.8%) for fixed neck THAs (p < 0.001). After controlling for potential confounding variables including age, sex, comorbidities, indication for THA, cementation, bearing surface, and the characteristics of the center where the implantation was performed, we found that the exchangeable femoral neck THA was associated with an increased hazard ratio (HR) of revision of 1.26 (95% CI, 1.14-1.38; p < 0.001) compared with the fixed neck THA. When dealing with cause-specific revision, exchangeable neck THAs had a higher incidence of revision for implant failure or periprosthetic fracture, and for mechanical complications; adjusted HRs were, respectively, 1.68 (95% CI, 1.24-2.27; p < 0.001) and 1.27 (95% CI, 1.13-1.43; p < 0.001), for exchangeable neck THAs compared with fixed ones. Exchangeable neck THAs had poorer survivorship independent of other prosthetic revision risk factors. Accordingly, expected anatomic and functional benefits should be carefully assessed before choosing this design. Level III, therapeutic study.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 66 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 8 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 12%
Researcher 7 11%
Student > Bachelor 7 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 9%
Other 18 27%
Unknown 12 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 45%
Engineering 5 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 17 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 February 2017.
All research outputs
#5,331,055
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#1,365
of 7,300 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#103,709
of 431,921 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#31
of 98 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,300 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 431,921 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 98 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.