Search

Background and purpose: Microplasty Instrumentation was introduced to improve Oxford Mobile Partial Knee placement and preserve tibial bone in partial knee replacement (PKR). This might therefore reduce revision complexity. We aimed to assess the difference in use of revision total knee replacement (TKR) tibial components in failed Microplasty versus non-Microplasty instrumented PKRs. Patients and methods: Data on 529 conversions to TKR (156 Microplasty instrumented and 373 non-Microplasty instrumented PKRs) from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI) between 2007 and 2019 was used. The primary outcome was the difference in use of revision TKR tibial components during conversion to TKR, which was calculated with a univariable logistic regression analysis. The secondary outcomes were the 3-year re-revision rate and hazard ratios calculated with Kaplan–Meier and Cox regression analyses. Results: Revision TKR tibial components were used in 29% of the conversions to TKR after failed Microplasty instrumented PKRs and in 24% after failed non-Microplasty instrumented PKRs with an odds ratio of 1.3 (CI 0.86–2.0). The 3-year re-revision rates were 8.4% (CI 4.1–17) after conversion to TKR for failed Microplasty and 11% (CI 7.8–15) for failed non-Microplasty instrumented PKRs with a hazard ratio of 0.77 (CI 0.36–1.7). Conclusion: There was no difference in use of revision tibial components for conversion to TKR or in re-revision rate after failed Microplasty versus non-Microplasty instrumented PKRs nor in the 3-year revision rate.

Background and purpose — Guidelines for managing hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA) advise extensive non-surgical treatment prior to surgery. We evaluated what percentage of hip and knee OA patients received non-surgical treatment prior to arthroplasty, and assessed patient satisfaction regarding alleviation of symptoms and performance of activities. Patients and methods — A multi-center cross-sectional study was performed in 2018 among 186 patients who were listed for hip or knee arthroplasty or had undergone surgery within the previous 6 months in the Netherlands. Questions concerned non-surgical treatments received according to the Stepped Care Strategy and were compared with utilization in 2013. Additionally, satisfaction with treatment effects for pain, swelling, stiffness, and activities of daily life, work, and sports/leisure was questioned. Results — The questionnaire was completed by 175 patients, age 66 years (range 38–84), 57% female, BMI 29 (IQR 25–33). Step 1 treatments, such as acetaminophen and lifestyle advice, were received by 79% and 60% of patients. Step 2 treatments, like exercise-based therapy and diet therapy, were received by 66% and 19%. Step 3—intra-articular injection—was received by 47%. Non-surgical treatment utilization was lower than in 2013. Nearly all treatments showed more satisfied patients regarding pain relief and fewer regarding activities of work/sports/leisure. Hip and knee OA patients were mostly satisfied with NSAIDs for all outcomes, while exercise-based therapy was rated second best. Interpretation — Despite international guideline recommendations, non-surgical treatment for hip and knee OA remains underutilized in the Netherlands. Of the patients referred for arthroplasty, more were satisfied with the effect of non-surgical treatment on pain than on work/sports/leisure participation.

Background and purpose — Femoral neck fractures are commonly treated with cemented or uncemented hemiarthroplasties (HA). We evaluated differences in mortality and revision rates in this fragile patient group. Patients and methods — From January 1, 2007 until December 31, 2016, 22,356 HA procedures from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI) were included. For each HA, follow-up until death, revision, or end of follow-up (December 31, 2016) was determined. The crude revision rate was determined by competing risk analysis. Multivariable Cox regression analyses were performed to evaluate the effect of fixation method (cemented vs. uncemented) on death or revision. Age, sex, BMI, Orthopaedic Data Evaluation Panel (ODEP) rating, ASA grade, surgical approach, and previous surgery were included as potential confounders. Results — 1-year mortality rates did not differ between cemented and uncemented HA. 9-year mortality rates were 53% (95% CI 52–54) in cemented HA compared to 56% (CI 54–58) in uncemented HA. Multivariable Cox regression analysis showed similar mortality between cemented and uncemented HA (HR 1.0, CI 0.96–1.1). A statistically significantly lower 9-year revision rate of 3.1% (CI 2.7–3.6) in cemented HA compared with 5.1% (CI 4.2–6.2) in the uncemented HA was found with a lower hazard ratio for revision in cemented compared with uncemented HA (HR 0.56, CI 0.47–0.67). Interpretation — Long-term mortality rates did not differ between patients with a cemented or uncemented HA after an acute femoral neck fracture. Revision rates were lower in cemented compared with uncemented HA.

Background and purpose — Partial knee replacement (PKR) survival rates vary a great deal among registries and cohort studies. These discrepancies can largely be attributed to inappropriate indications of the PKR and low thresholds for revision, but also to the PKR volume. This study used Dutch Arthroplasty Register data to analyze whether absolute PKR or proportional PKR hospital volume is associated with the risk of revision. Patients and methods — 18,134 PKRs were identified in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register from 2007 to 2016. For each year, hospitals were divided into 4 groups based on the quartiles for the absolute volume (< 22, 22–36, 36–58 and > 58 PKRs per year) and the proportional volume (< 8.5, 8.6–14.2, 14.3–25.8 and > 25.8% PKRs). Kaplan–Meier survival analysis was performed to determine survival rates. A multivariable Cox regression adjusted for age category, sex, ASA score, year of surgery, diagnosis, unicondylar side, and type of hospital was used to estimate hazard ratios (HR) for revision. Results and interpretation — Proportional PKR volume did not, but absolute PKR volume did influence the risk of revision. The adjusted HR for hospitals with an absolute volume of 22–36 PKRs per year was 1.04 (95% CI 0.91–1.20), 0.96 (CI 0.83–1.10) for the hospitals with 36–58 PKRs, and 0.74 (CI 0.62–0.89) for hospitals with more than 58 PKRs compared with hospitals that had fewer than 22 PKRs per year. So, patients treated with a PKR in a high absolute volume hospital have a lower risk of revision compared with those treated in a low absolute volume hospital.

Background and purpose — The Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) was analyzed to determine trends in use of primary total elbow arthroplasty (TEA), the types of prostheses used, primary diagnoses, reasons for and types of revision, and whether the primary diagnosis or prosthesis design influenced the revision rate. Patients and methods — During 2008–2018, 1,220 primary TEA procedures were reported of which 140 TEAs were revised. Kaplan–Meier estimates of survivorship were used to describe the time to first revision and hazard ratios (HR) from Cox proportional hazard models, adjusted for age and sex, were used to compare revision rates. Results — The annual number of TEAs performed remained constant. The 3 most common diagnoses for primary TEA were fracture/dislocation (trauma) (36%), osteoarthritis (OA) (34%), and rheumatoid arthritis (RA) (26%). The cumulative percentage revision for all TEAs undertaken for any reason was 10%, 15%, and 19% at 3, 6, and 9 years. TEAs undertaken for OA had a higher revision rate compared with TEAs for trauma (HR = 1.8, 95% CI 1.1–3.0) and RA (HR = 2.0, CI 1.3–3.1). The Coonrad-Morrey (50%), Latitude (30%), Nexel (10%), and Discovery (9%) were the most used prosthesis designs. There was no difference in revision rates when these 4 designs were compared. The most common reasons for revision were infection (35%) and aseptic loosening (34%). Interpretation — The indications for primary and revision TEA in Australia are similar to those reported for other registries. Revision for trauma is lower than previously reported.

Background and purpose — Radiostereometric analysis (RSA) is an accurate method for measurement of early migration of implants. Since a relation has been shown between early migration and future loosening of total knee and hip prostheses, RSA plays an important role in the development and evaluation of prostheses. However, there have been few RSA studies of the upper limb, and the value of RSA of the upper limb is not yet clear. We therefore performed a systematic review to investigate the accuracy and precision of RSA of the upper limb. Patients and methods — PRISMA guidelines were followed and the protocol for this review was published online at PROSPERO under registration number CRD42016042014. A systematic search of the literature was performed in the databases Embase, Medline, Cochrane, Web of Science, Scopus, Cinahl, and Google Scholar on April 25, 2015 based on the keywords radiostereometric analysis, shoulder prosthesis, elbow prosthesis, wrist prosthesis, trapeziometacarpal joint prosthesis, humerus, ulna, radius, carpus. Articles concerning RSA for the analysis of early migration of prostheses of the upper limb were included. Quality assessment was performed using the MINORS score, Downs and Black checklist, and the ISO RSA Results — 23 studies were included. Precision values were in the 0.06–0.88 mm and 0.05–10.7° range for the shoulder, the 0.05–0.34 mm and 0.16–0.76° range for the elbow, and the 0.16–1.83 mm and 11–124° range for the TMC joint. Accuracy data from marker- and model-based RSA were not reported in the studies included. Interpretation — RSA is a highly precise method for measurement of early migration of orthopedic implants in the upper limb. However, the precision of rotation measurement is poor in some components. Challenges with RSA in the upper limb include the symmetrical shape of prostheses and the limited size of surrounding bone, leading to over-projection of the markers by the prosthesis. We recommend higher adherence to RSA guidelines and encourage investigators to publish long-term follow-up RSA studies.