Skip to main content
. 2014 Dec 17;96(Suppl 1):34–41. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.N.00465

TABLE III.

Results of the Random-Effects Analysis Comparing C-C and M-HXLPE Implants

Hazard Ratio (95% CI)*
>28-mm C-C, Relative to All M-HXLPE ≤28-mm C-C, Relative to All M-HXLPE
Time in yr
 0 to 1 Ref. Ref.
 1 to 2 6.59 (4.98-8.71) 5.94 (4.35-8.11)
 2 to 3 8.09 (6.08-10.76) 7.27 (5.31-9.95)
 3 to 4 9.66 (7.25-12.88) 8.29 (6.05-11.37)
 4 to 5 10.59 (7.94-14.13) 9.15 (6.67-12.56)
 5 to 6 11.82 (8.84-15.80) 10.14 (7.37-13.94)
 6 to 7 12.74 (9.49-17.11) 10.85 (7.88-14.96)
 7 to 8 14.82 (10.93-20.09) 12.63 (9.08-17.56)
 8 to 9 15.45 (11.10-21.52) 13.11 (9.07-18.94)
 9 to 10 NA 14.74 (9.52-22.82)
Sex
 Male Ref. Ref.
 Female 1.08 (0.93-1.27) 0.97 (0.80-1.18)
Age in yr
 45 to 54 Ref. Ref.
 55 to 64 0.81 (0.68-0.97) 0.87 (0.70-1.10)
Bearing surface and size
 Overall NA 1.10 (0.43-2.85)
 0 to 2 yr§ 0.80 (0.67-0.96) NA
 2 to 6 yr§ 0.92 (0.78-1.08) NA
 6 to 9 yr§ 0.96 (0.81-1.15) NA
*

Results are based on an iterative solution that updates the residual covariances until convergence. Confidence intervals for the C-C >28-mm model are based on a Z distribution. Our simulations indicated that an optimal strategy for CI construction in the presence of random effects was to use tκ 1 for fixed parameters with corresponding random effects and to use tn p otherwise (where κ − 1 and n − p indicate the degrees of freedom for the t distribution, κ is the number of registries, n is the number of observations, and p is the number of fixed effects); this is the approach taken in construction of the CIs for the C-C ≤28-mm model. NA = not applicable.

The estimated intercept was −5.69 (SE, 1.17).

The estimated intercept was −5.56 (SE, 0.18), and the bearing surface random effect was 0.08 (SE, 0.12).

§

The bearing effects over time are based on a combination of the main and interaction effects from the model.