Background: The use of larger femoral heads in total hip replacement (THR) has increased over the last decade. While the relationship between increasing head size and increased stability is well known, the risk of revision with increasing head size remains poorly understood. The aim of this study was to compare the outcome of total hip joint replacement with 32-mm and 36-mm heads.
Methods: We carried out a 20-year retrospective analysis of prospective data from the New Zealand Joint Registry (NZJR). All primary total hip replacements registered between January 1999 and December 2018 were included. We compared the rate of revision of 32-mm and 36-mm heads in THR. Sub-group analysis included comparisons of bearing type and all-cause revision.
Results: 60,051 primary THRs met our inclusion criteria. The revision rate per 100 component years was significantly higher with a 36-mm head than with a 32-mm head (0.649 vs. 0.534, p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis of bearing type showed no significant differences in revision rates for all combinations of 36-mm heads when compared to 32-mm (p = 0.074-0.92), with the exception of metal-on-metal (MoM); p = 0.038. When MoM was removed there was no significant difference in revision rates per 100 component years between 32-mm and 36-mm heads, 0.528 versus 0.578 (p = 0.099).
Conclusions: Increasing head size from 32 mm to 36 mm results in no significant increase in revision in all bearing combinations except MoM.
Keywords: 32 mm; 36 mm; Dislocation; head size; hip arthroplasty; revision.