Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 16, 2026
The Transition to an Anterior-Based Muscle Sparing Approach Improves Early Postoperative Function but is Associated with a Learning Curve
Published on: September 7, 2022
Setting benchmark revision rates for total hip replacement: analysis of registry evidence
Ngianga-Bakwin Kandala1, Martin Connock1, Ruth Pulikottil-Jacob1
1Warwick Evidence, Division of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK.
Objective:
To compare 10 year revision rates for frequently used types of primary total hip replacement to inform setting of a new benchmark rate in England and Wales that will be of international relevance.
Design:
Retrospective cohort study.
Setting:
National Joint Registry.
Participants:
239 000 patient records.
Main Outcome Measures:
Revision rates for five frequently used types of total hip replacement that differed according to bearing surface and fixation mode, encompassing 62% of all primary total hip replacements in the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Revision rates were compared using Kaplan-Meier and competing risks analyses, and five and 10 year rates were estimated using well fitting parametric models.
Results:
Estimated revision rates at 10 years were 4% or below for four of the five types of total hip replacement investigated. Rates differed little according to Kaplan-Meier or competing risks analysis, but differences between prosthesis types were more substantial. Cemented prostheses with ceramic-on-polyethylene bearing surfaces had the lowest revision rates (1.88-2.11% at 10 years depending on the method used), and cementless prostheses with ceramic-on-ceramic bearing surfaces had the highest revision rates (3.93-4.33%). Men were more likely to receive revision of total hip replacement than were women, and this difference was statistically significant for four of the five prosthesis types.
Conclusions:
Ten year revision rate estimates were all less than 5%, and in some instances considerably less. The results suggest that the current revision rate benchmark should be at least halved from 10% to less than 5% at 10 years. This has implications for benchmarks internationally.
