Search

Background: Joint arthroplasty registries traditionally report survivorship outcomes mainly on primary joint arthroplasty. The outcome of first revision procedures is less commonly reported, because large numbers of primary procedures are required to analyze a sufficient number of first revision procedures. Additionally, adequate linkage of primary procedures to revisions and mortality is required. When undertaking revision hip surgery, it is important for surgeons to understand the outcomes of these procedures to better inform patients.Questions/purposes: Using data from a large national joint registry, we asked: (1) What is the overall rate of revision of the first aseptic revision procedure for a primary THA? (2) Does the rate of revision of the first revision vary by the diagnosis for the first revision? (3) What is the mortality after the first revision, and does it vary by the reason for first revision?Methods: The Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry longitudinally maintains data on all primary and revision joint arthroplasties, with nearly 100% capture. The analyses for this study were performed on primary THA procedures in patients with a diagnosis of osteoarthritis up to December 31, 2020, who had undergone subsequent revision. We excluded all primary THAs involving metal-on-metal and ceramic-on-metal bearing surfaces and prostheses with exchangeable necks because these designs may have particular issues associated with revisions, such as extensive soft tissue destruction, that are not seen with conventional bearings, making a comparative analysis of the first revision involving these bearing surfaces more complicated. Metal-on-metal bearing surfaces have not been used in Australia since 2017. We identified 17,046 first revision procedures from the above study population and after exclusions, included 13,713 first revision procedures in the analyses. The mean age at the first revision was 71 ± 11 years, and 55% (7496 of 13,713) of the patients were women. The median (IQR) time from the primary procedure to the first revision was 3 years (0.3 to 7.3), ranging from 0.8 years for the diagnosis of dislocation and instability to 10 years for osteolysis. There was some variation depending on the reason for the first revision. For example, patients undergoing revision for fracture were slightly older (mean age 76 ± 11 years) and patients undergoing revision for dislocation were more likely to be women (61% [2213 of 3620]). The registry has endeavored to standardize the sequence of revisions and uses a numerical approach to describe revision procedures. The first revision is the revision of a primary procedure, the second revision is the revision of the first revision, and so on. We therefore described the outcome of the first revision as the cumulative percent second revision. The outcome measure was the cumulative percent revision, which was defined using Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship to describe the time to the second revision. Hazard ratios from Cox proportional hazards models, adjusting for age and gender, were performed to compare the revision rates among groups. When possible, the cumulative percent second revision at the longest follow-up timepoint was determined with the available data, and when there were insufficient numbers, we used appropriate earlier time periods.Results: The cumulative percent second revision at 18 years was 26% (95% confidence interval [CI] 24% to 28%). When comparing the outcome of the first revision by reason, prosthesis dislocation or instability had the highest rate of second revision compared with the other reasons for first revision. Dual-mobility prostheses had a lower rate of second revision for dislocation or instability than head sizes 32 mm or smaller and when compared to constrained prostheses after 3 months. There was no difference between dual-mobility prostheses and head sizes larger than 32 mm. There were no differences in the rate of second revision when first revisions for loosening, periprosthetic fracture, and osteolysis were compared. If cemented femoral fixation was performed at the time of the first revision, there was a higher cumulative percent second revision for loosening than cementless fixation from 6 months to 6 years, and after this time, there was no difference. The overall mortality after a first revision of primary conventional THA was 1% at 30 days, 2% at 90 days, 5% at 1 year, and 40% at 10 years. A first revision for periprosthetic fracture had the highest mortality at all timepoints compared with other reasons for the first revision.Conclusion: Larger head sizes and dual-mobility cups may help reduce further revisions for dislocation, and the use of cementless stems for a first revision for loosening seems advantageous. Surgeons may counsel patients about the higher risk of death after first revision procedures, particularly if the first revision is performed for periprosthetic fracture.Level of Evidence Level III, therapeutic study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Dislocation is one of the most common causes of a re-revision after a revision THA. Dual-mobility constructs and large femoral head bearings (≥ 36 mm) are known options for mitigating this risk. However, it is unknown which of these choices is better for reducing the risk of dislocation and all-cause re-revision surgery. It is also unknown whether there is a difference between dual-mobility constructs and large femoral head bearings according to the size of the acetabular component.Questions/purposes: We used data from a large national registry to ask: In patients undergoing revision THA for aseptic causes after a primary THA performed for osteoarthritis, (1) Does the proportion of re-revision surgery for prosthesis dislocation differ between revision THAs performed with dual-mobility constructs and those performed with large femoral head bearings? (2) Does the proportion of re-revision surgery for all aseptic causes differ between revision THAs performed with dual-mobility constructs and those performed with large femoral head bearings? (3) Is there a difference when the results are stratified by acetabular component size?Methods: Data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) were analyzed for 1295 first-revision THAs for aseptic causes after a primary THA performed for osteoarthritis. The study period was from January 2008-when the first dual-mobility prosthesis was recorded-to December 2019. There were 502 dual-mobility constructs and 793 large femoral head bearings. There was a larger percentage of women in the dual-mobility construct group (67% [334 of 502]) compared with the large femoral head bearing group (51% [402 of 793]), but this was adjusted for in the statistical analysis. Patient ages were similar for the dual-mobility construct group (67 ± 11 years) and the large femoral head group (65 ± 12 years). American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class and BMI distributions were similar. The mean follow-up was shorter for dual-mobility constructs at 2 ± 1.8 years compared with 4 ± 2.9 years for large femoral head bearings. The cumulative percent revision (CPR) was determined for a diagnosis of prosthesis dislocation as well as for all aseptic causes (excluding infection). Procedures using metal-on-metal bearings were excluded. The time to the re-revision was described using Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship, with right censoring for death or database closure at the time of analysis. The unadjusted CPR was estimated each year of the first 5 years for dual-mobility constructs and for each of the first 9 years for large femoral head bearings, with 95% confidence intervals using unadjusted pointwise Greenwood estimates. The apparent shorter follow-up of the dual-mobility construct group relates to the more recent increase in dual-mobility numbers recorded in the registry. The results were adjusted for age, gender, and femoral fixation. Results were subanalyzed for acetabular component sizes < 58 mm and ≥ 58 mm, set a priori on the basis of biomechanical and other registry data.Results: There was no difference in the proportion of re-revision for prosthesis dislocation between dual-mobility constructs and large femoral head bearings (hazard ratio 1.22 [95% CI 0.70 to 2.12]; p = 0.49). At 5 years, the CPR of the re-revision for prosthesis dislocation was 4.0% for dual mobility constructs (95% CI 2.3% to 6.8%) and 4.1% for large femoral head bearings (95% CI 2.7% to 6.1%). There was no difference in the proportion of all aseptic-cause second revisions between dual-mobility constructs and large femoral head bearings (HR 1.02 [95% CI 0.76 to 1.37]; p = 0.89). At 5 years, the CPR of dual-mobility constructs was 17.6% for all aseptic-cause second revision (95% CI 12.6% to 24.3%) and 17.8% for large femoral head bearings (95% CI 14.9% to 21.2%). When stratified by acetabular component sizes less than 58 mm and at least 58 mm, there was no difference in the re-revision CPR for dislocation or for all aseptic causes between dual-mobility constructs and large femoral head bearings.Conclusion: Either dual-mobility constructs or large femoral head bearings can be used in revision THA, regardless of acetabular component size, as they did not differ in terms of re-revision rates for dislocation and all aseptic causes in this registry study. Longer term follow-up is required to assess whether complications develop with either implant or whether a difference in revision rates becomes apparent. Ongoing follow-up and comparison in a registry format would seem the best way to compare long-term complications and revision rates. Future studies should also compare surgeon factors and whether they influence decision-making between prosthesis options and second revision rates. Nested randomized controlled trials in national registries would seem a viable option for future research.Level Of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) prosthesis is the most commonly used metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty device. The current manufacturer-recommended target demographic for the BHR is male patients, younger than 65 years requiring a femoral head size of ≥ 50 mm. Female patients, older patients, and individuals with smaller femoral-head diameter (≤ 50 mm) are known to have higher revision rates. Prior studies suggest that the survivorship of the BHR when used in the target demographic is comparable with that of primary conventional THA, but comparing survivorship of the most durable hip resurfacing arthroplasty device to the survivorship of all conventional THA prostheses is not ideal because the THA group comprises a large number of different types of prostheses that have considerable variation in prosthesis survival. A more informative comparison would be with the THA implants with the best survivorship, as this might help address the question of whether survivorship in the BHR target population can be improved by using a well-performing conventional THA.Questions/purposes: We compared the difference in cumulative percent revision, reasons for revision and types of revision for procedures reported to the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) using the BHR prosthesis (femoral-head size > 50 mm) and three conventional THA prostheses identified as having the lowest 10-year cumulative percent revision in the currently recommended BHR target population to ask: (1) Does the BHR have a lower cumulative revision rate than the group of three conventional THA prostheses? (2) Is there a difference in the revision diagnosis between the BHR and the three best conventional THA prostheses? (3) What is the difference in the components used for a revision of a BHR compared with the three best conventional THA prostheses?Methods: Data reported to the AOANJRR between September 1, 1999 and December 31, 2018 was used for this analysis. This study period includes almost the entire use of the BHR in Australia. The AOANJRR is a large national joint registry with almost 100% completeness, high accuracy, rigorous validation, and little to no loss to follow-up. The study population included males younger than 65 years that had received one hip replacement procedure for osteoarthritis. All patients with bilateral procedures, no matter the time interval between hips, were excluded. Only BHR prostheses with a femoral-head size ≥ 50 mm and conventional THA prostheses with femoral head sizes ≥ 32 mm and either ceramic-on-ceramic or metal, ceramic, ceramicized metal-on-crosslinked polyethylene (XLPE) bearings were included. These femoral head sizes and bearings were selected because they reflect modern conventional THA practice. There is no difference in the revision rate of these bearings in the AOANJRR. There were 4790 BHR procedures and 2696 conventional THA procedures in the study group. The mean (± SD) age for BHR procedures was 52 ± 7.8 years and 56 ± 7.1 years for conventional THA procedures. All comparative analyses were adjusted for age. Other demographics data including American Society Anesthesiologists (ASA) score and BMI were only included in AOANJRR data collection since 2012 and 2015, respectively, and have not been included in this analysis because of the low use of BHR in Australia since that time. The maximum follow-up was 18.7 years for both groups and mean follow-up of 11.9 years for the BHR and 9.3 years for the conventional THA group. Revision rates were determined using Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship to describe the time to the first revision, with censoring at the time of death or closure of the database at the time of analysis. A revision was defined as removal, replacement or addition of any component of a joint replacement. Revisions can be further classified as major revisions (removal of a component articulating with bone-usually the stem and/or the shell) or minor revisions (removal of other components-usually the head and/or the liner). The unadjusted cumulative percent revision after the primary arthroplasty (with 95% confidence intervals) was calculated and compared using Cox proportional hazard models adjusted for age.Results: The BHR prosthesis had a statistically higher rate of all-cause revision at 17 years than the selected conventional THA prostheses (HR 2.77 [95% CI 1.78 to 4.32]; p < 0.001). The revision diagnoses differed between the groups, with the BHR demonstrating a higher revision rate for loosening after 2 years than the conventional THA protheses (HR 4.64 [95% CI 1.66 to 12.97]; p = 0.003), as well as a higher fracture rate during the entire period (HR 2.57 [95% CI 1.24 to 5.33]; p = 0.01). There was a lower revision rate for infection for the BHR compared with the THA group in the first 5 years, with no difference between the two groups after this time. All revisions of the BHR were major revisions (such as, removal or exchange of the femoral and/or acetabular components) and this occurred in 4.5% of the primary BHR procedures. Major revision was the most common type of revision for primary THA accounting for 1.7% of all primary THA procedures. Minor revisions (head, inset or both) were undertaken in a further 0.6% of primary THA procedures.Conclusions: Given the increasing revision risk of the BHR compared with better-performing conventional THA prostheses in the target population, we recommend that patients be counseled about this risk. We suggest that a THA with proven low revision rates might be the better choice, particularly for patients who are concerned about implant durability. Well-controlled prospective studies that show appreciable clinically important differences in patient-reported outcomes and functional results favoring the BHR over conventional THA prostheses using modern bearings are needed to justify the use of the BHR in view of this revision risk.Level Of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: TKA generally has excellent long-term survivorship. When a new knee system supersedes a previous model, increased survivorship, improved functional performance, or both may be expected, because key areas of design modification are often targeted to address wear, stability, and the patellofemoral articulation. However, not all design changes are beneficial, and to our knowledge, knee arthroplasty has not been systematically evaluated in the context of design changes that occur during the development of new knee arthroplasty systems.Questions/purposes: Using the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) we performed multiple old-to-new comparisons of frequently used contemporary knee implants to ask: (1) does overall prosthesis survivorship free from revision increase when a new knee prosthesis system is introduced to replace a prior prosthesis system? (2) Has survivorship free from revision improved for the revision indications of wear, instability, and patellofemoral articulation issues, where development efforts have been concentrated?Methods: Data from the AOANJRR from September 1999 to December 2017 were used to compare the survivorship of prostheses free from revision at a maximum of 17 years in procedures where a new design model was introduced to replace a prior knee system from the same manufacturer. Only prosthesis systems used in a minimum of 2000 primary TKA procedures for osteoarthritis that had a minimum of 5 years of follow-up were included. Varus-valgus constrained and hinge TKA designs were excluded. Cruciate-retaining, posterior-stabilized, and medial pivot-design knees were considered separately. The new and old prosthesis systems were paired for analysis. Survivorship was calculated with Kaplan Meier estimates and comparisons were performed using the Cox proportional hazards method. Subanalyses according to the three main revision indications were performed, and where possible, analyses were performed based on polyethylene types (highly cross-linked polyethylene and ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene), combined and separated. Revision was defined as a reoperation of a previous knee arthroplasty in which one or more of the components was removed, replaced, or added. There were 323,955 TKA procedures and 11 new prosthesis system designs that were introduced to replace an earlier knee system from the same manufacturer. Of these prosthesis system pairs, six were cruciate-retaining prostheses, four were posterior-stabilized designs, and one was a medial pivot design.Results: Six of the 11 knee system pairs showed improved survivorship with the new design, three were no different, and in two, the newer prosthesis systems had a higher rate of revision than the old one did. When revision for wear was analyzed, five prosthesis systems showed improvement, five were no different, and one had a higher rate of revision than the previous system did. There was no improvement in the rate of revision for instability; seven new prosthesis systems showed no difference from the previous system and four new prosthesis systems had a higher rate of revision than the previous system did. A subanalysis of revision for patellofemoral complications showed improvement in two comparisons, no difference in six, and a higher revision rate in two; one could not be calculated because of an insufficient number of revisions for this reason.Conclusions: It is difficult to predict whether a new system will demonstrate better survival than a previous one, and widespread uptake of a new design before a benefit is shown in robust clinical studies is unwise. Similarly, adoption of a new system for which there is no difference in survivorship from a previous model may be premature because a new device may have associated unknown and unintended consequences. Healthcare policy makers and therapeutic device regulators should similarly be guided by results and seek out peer-reviewed evidence before accepting change to established practice. Surgeons must be aware that implant changes may not translate into better survivorship and must seek compelling evidence of improvement in survival and/or function before changing systems.Level Of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Some surgeons contend that unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) can easily be revised to a TKA when revision is called for, whereas others believe that this can be complex and technically demanding. There has been little research regarding the efficacy or rationale of using metal augmentation and tibial stem extensions when revising a UKA to a TKA. QUESTION/PURPOSES: (1) Is the use of stem extensions for the tibial component associated with increased survival when revising a UKA to a TKA? (2) Is the addition of modular augments associated with increased survival compared with stem extensions alone? (3) Is TKA design (minimally stabilized versus posterior-stabilized) or (4) tibial fixation (cemented versus cementless) associated with differences in survivorship?Methods: Data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) were used to analyze implant survival after revision of a UKA to a TKA, comparing results in which tibial components were used with and without modular components. The groups analyzed were TKA without a stem extension, those in which a tibial stem extension was used, and those in which a tibial stem extension was used together with an augment. There were 4438 revisions of UKAs to TKAs available for analysis. The mean duration of followup of patients having the TKA revisions was 5 years (SD, 3.5 years). There were 2901 (65%) procedures in which a tibial stem extension was not used, 870 (20%) procedures with a tibial stem extension, and 667 (15%) with a tibial stem extension and metallic augment. Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship were calculated and hazard ratios (HRs) from Cox proportional hazard models, adjusting for age and sex, were used to compare the rate of revision among groups. The overall 10-year cumulative percent revision (CPR) for UKA revised to a TKA was 16%.Results: At 10 years, the CPR was increased when a stem extension was not used (19%; 95% confidence interval [CI],16.5-20.7 without a stem extension compared with 13%; 95% CI, 9.2-17.0 with a stem extension; entire period HR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.10-1.89; p = 0.007). There was no difference in the 10-year CPR when an augment was used together with a stem extension compared with a stem extension alone (HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.85-1.86; p = 0.251). When minimally stabilized and posterior-stabilized TKAs were compared, there was no difference in survivorship. Minimally stabilized TKA designs without stem extensions showed higher CPR compared with when stem extensions were used (HR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.16-2.70; p = 0.007), whereas posterior-stabilized designs without stem extensions showed higher CPR only when compared with when stem extensions and augments were both used (HR, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.24-3.77; p = 0.006). Cementless fixation of the tibial component resulted in a higher CPR than when cement was used (HR, 1.36; 95% CI 1.08-1.71; p = 0.008).Conclusions: In this registry study, the risk of repeat revision after revision of a UKA to a TKA was lower when a tibial stem extension was used, but no such difference was found with respect to augments. Our study did not account for the degree of bone loss or surgeon preference when considering stems and augments. Further research to establish the degree of bone loss associated with UKA to TKA revision procedures will help clarify these findings.Level Of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Earlier results with porous tantalum acetabular cups in revision THA generally have been favorable. Recently there has been some evidence presented that porous tantalum cups might decrease the risk of rerevision in the setting of revision hip surgery performed owing to prosthetic joint infection (PJI). As the data supporting this assertion come from a study with a limited study population, examining this issue with a large registry approach may be enlightening.Questions/purposes: By combining results from two large, national registries, we asked: (1) Do porous tantalum cups show improved survival after revision THA compared with other cementless designs? (2) Does the use of porous tantalum cups influence survivorship when rerevision for PJI is the endpoint?Methods: A total of 2442 first-time THA revisions with porous tantalum cups and 4401 first-time revisions with other uncemented cups were included in this collaborative study between the Australian and Swedish national joint registries. The mean age of the patients was 69 years (range, 19-97 years), 3754 (55%) of the patients were women, and the mean followup for the porous tantalum and uncemented control groups were 3.0 years (SD, ± 2.1 years) and 3.4 years (SD, ± 2.3 years), respectively. Concomitant stem revision was more common in the porous tantalum group (43% versus 36%). The use of porous tantalum augments also was analyzed as a proxy for more complex acetabular reconstructions. In an attempt to further reduce selection bias, we performed subgroup analysis for primary operations attributable to osteoarthritis and first revision attributable to aseptic loosening.Results: Kaplan-Meier survivorship with rerevisison for any reason up to 7 years was comparable between the porous tantalum cup group and the uncemented cup control group (86% [95% CI, 85%-89%] and 87% [95% CI, 85%-89%], respectively; p = 0.85) and the overall survivorship up to 7 years with a second revision for PJI as the endpoint (97% [95% CI, 95%-98%] and 97% [95% CI, 96%-98%], respectively; p = 0.64). Excluding procedures where augments had been used or studying primary osteoarthritis and first revision owing to aseptic loosening subgroups did not change this result.Conclusions: Implant survival for a porous tantalum cup in first-time THA revision was similar to the survival of the uncemented cup control group. With the numbers available, no benefit in survival with rerevision for infection as the endpoint could be ascribed to the porous tantalum cup group, as has been suggested by earlier work. Further studies with acetabular bone deficiency data, greater insight into host comorbidity factors, and a longer followup are needed to corroborate or refute these results.Level Of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]