Search

Background Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are a pragmatic and efficient means to evaluate the functional quality of arthroplasty beyond revision rates, which are used by most joint replacement registries to judge success. The relationship between these two measures of quality--revision rates and PROMs--is unknown, and not every procedure with a poor functional result is revised. It is logical--although still untested--that higher cumulative revision rates correlate inversely with PROMs for individual surgeons; more revisions are associated with lower PROM scores. Questions/purposes We used data from a large national joint replacement registry to ask: (1) Does a surgeon's early THA cumulative percent revision (CPR) rate and (2) early TKA CPR rate correlate with the postoperative PROMs of patients undergoing primary THA and TKA, respectively, who have not undergone revision? Methods Elective primary THA and TKA procedures in patients with a primary diagnosis of osteoarthritis that were performed between August 2018 and December 2020 and registered in the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry PROMs program were eligible. THAs and TKAs were eligible for inclusion in the primary analysis if 6-month postoperative PROMs were available, the operating surgeon was clearly identified, and the surgeon had performed at least 50 primary THAs or TKAs. Based on the inclusion criteria, 17,668 THAs were performed at eligible sites. We excluded 8878 procedures that were not matched to the PROMs program, leaving 8790 procedures. A further 790 were excluded because they were performed by unknown or ineligible surgeons or were revised, leaving 8000 procedures performed by 235 eligible surgeons, including 4256 (53%; 3744 cases of missing data) patients who had postoperative Oxford Hip Scores and 4242 (53%; 3758 cases of missing data) patients who had a postoperative EQ-VAS score recorded. Complete covariate data were available for 3939 procedures for the Oxford Hip Score and for 3941 procedures for the EQ-VAS. A total of 26,624 TKAs were performed at eligible sites. We excluded 12,685 procedures that were not matched to the PROMs program, leaving 13,939 procedures. A further 920 were excluded because they were performed by unknown or ineligible surgeons, or because they were revisions, leaving 13,019 procedures performed by 276 eligible surgeons, including 6730 (52%; 6289 cases of missing data) patients who had had postoperative Oxford Knee Scores and 6728 (52%; 6291 cases of missing data) patients who had a postoperative EQ-VAS score recorded. Complete covariate data were available for 6228 procedures for the Oxford Knee Score and for 6241 procedures for the EQ-VAS. The Spearman correlation between the operating surgeon's 2-year CPR and 6-month postoperative EQ-VAS Health and Oxford Hip or Oxford Knee Score was evaluated for THA and TKA procedures where a revision had not been performed. Associations between postoperative Oxford and EQ-VAS scores and a surgeon's 2-year CPR were estimated based on multivariate Tobit regressions and a cumulative link model with a probit link, adjusting for patient age, gender, ASA score, BMI category, preoperative PROMs, as well as surgical approach for THA. Missing data were accounted for using multiple imputation, with models assuming they were missing at random and a worst-case scenario. Results Of the eligible THA procedures, postoperative Oxford Hip Score and surgeon 2-year CPR were correlated so weakly as to be clinically irrelevant (Spearman correlation r = -0.09; p < 0.001), and the correlation with postoperative EQ-VAS was close to zero (r = -0.02; p = 0.25). Of the eligible TKA procedures, postoperative Oxford Knee Score and EQ-VAS and surgeon 2-year CPR were correlated so weakly as to be clinically irrelevant (r = -0.04; p = 0.004 and r = 0.03; p = 0.006, respectively). All models accounting for missing data found the same result. Conclusion A surgeon's 2-year CPR did not exhibit a clinically relevant correlation with PROMs after THA or TKA, and all surgeons had similar postoperative Oxford scores. PROMs, revision rates, or both may be inaccurate or imperfect indicators of successful arthroplasty.Missing data may limit the findings of this study, although the results were consistent under a variety of different missing data scenarios. Innumerable factors contribute to arthroplasty results, including patient-related variables, differences in implant design, and the technical quality of the procedure. PROMs and revision rates may be analyzing two different facets of function after arthroplasty. Although surgeon variables are associated with revision rates, patient factors may exert a stronger influence on functional outcomes. Future research should identify variables that correlate with functional outcome. Additionally, given the gross level of function that Oxford scores record, outcome measures that can identify clinically meaningful functional differences are required. The use of Oxford scores in national arthroplasty registries may rightfully be questioned. 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: Long-term implant survivorship in THA and TKA involves a combination of factors related to the patient, the implants used, and the decision-making and technical performance of the surgeon. It is unclear which of these factors is the most important in reducing the proportion of revision surgery.Questions/purposes: We used data from a large national registry to ask: In patients receiving primary THA and TKA for a diagnosis of osteoarthritis, do (1) the reasons for revision and (2) patient factors, the implants used, and the surgeon or surgical factors differ between surgeons performing THA and TKA who have a lower revision rate compared with all other surgeons?Methods: Data were analyzed for all THA and TKA procedures performed for a diagnosis of osteoarthritis from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) from September 1, 1999, when collection began, to December 31, 2018. The AOANJRR obtains data on more than 98% of joint arthroplasties performed in Australia. The 5-year cumulative percent revision (CPR) was identified for all THAs and TKAs performed for a diagnosis of osteoarthritis with 95% confidence intervals (overall CPR); the 5-year CPR with 95% CIs for each surgeon was calculated for THA and TKA separately. For surgeons to be included in the analysis, they had to have performed at least 50 procedures and have a 5-year CPR. The 5-year CPR with 95% CIs for each THA and TKA surgeon was compared with the overall CPR. Two groups were defined: low revision rate surgeons (the upper confidence level for a given surgeon at 5 years is less than 3.84% for THA and 4.32% for TKA), and all other surgeons (any surgeon whose CPR was higher than those thresholds). The thresholds were determined by setting a cutoff at 20% above the upper confidence level for that class. The approach we used to define a low revision rate surgeon was similar to that used by the AOANJRR for determining the better-performing prostheses and is recommended by the International Prosthesis Benchmarking Working Group. By defining the groups in this way, a significant difference between these two groups is created. Determining a reason for this difference is the purpose of presenting the proportions of different factors within each group. The study group for THA included 116 low revision rate surgeons, who performed 88,392 procedures (1619 revised, 10-year CPR 2.7% [95% CI 2.6% to 2.9%]) and 433 other surgeons, who performed 170,094 procedures (6911 revised, 10-year CPR 5.9% [95% CI 5.7% to 6.0%]). The study group for TKA consisted of 144 low revision rate surgeons, who performed 159,961 procedures (2722 revised, 10-year CPR 2.6% [95% CI 2.5% to 2.8%]) and 534 other surgeons, who performed 287,232 procedures (12,617 revised, 10-year CPR 6.4% [95% CI 6.3% to 6.6%]). These groups were defined a priori by their rate of revision, and the purpose of this study was to explore potential reasons for this observed difference.Results: For THA, the difference in overall revision rate between low revision rate surgeons and other surgeons was driven mainly by fewer revisions for dislocation, followed by component loosening and fracture in patients treated by low revision rate surgeons. For TKA, the difference in overall revision rate between low revision rate surgeons and other surgeons was driven mainly by fewer revisions for aseptic loosening, followed by instability and patellofemoral complications in patients treated by low revision rate surgeons. Patient-related factors were generally similar between low revision rate surgeons and other surgeons for both THA and TKA. Regarding THA, there were differences in implant factors, with low revision rate surgeons using fewer types of implants that have been identified as having a higher-than-anticipated rate of revision within the AOANJRR. Low revision rate surgeons used a higher proportion of hybrid fixation, although cementless fixation remained the most common choice. For surgeon factors, low revision rate surgeons were more likely to perform more than 100 THA procedures per year, while other surgeons were more likely to perform fewer than 50 THA procedures per year. In general, the groups of surgeons (low revision rate surgeons and other surgeons) differed less in terms of years of surgical experience than they did in terms of the number of cases they performed each year, although low revision rate surgeons, on average, had more years of experience and performed more cases per year. Regarding TKA, there were more differences in implant factors than with THA, with low revision rate surgeons more frequently performing patellar resurfacing, using an AOANJRR-identified best-performing prosthesis combination (with the lowest rates of revision), using fewer implants that have been identified as having a higher-than-anticipated rate of revision within the AOANJRR, using highly crosslinked polyethylene, and using a higher proportion of cemented fixation compared with other surgeons. For surgeon factors, low revision rate surgeons were more likely to perform more than 100 TKA procedures per year, whereas all other surgeons were more likely to perform fewer than 50 procedures per year. Again, generally, the groups of surgeons (low revision rate surgeons and other surgeons) differed less in terms of years of surgical experience than they did in terms of the number of cases they performed annually, although low revision rate surgeons, on average, had more years of experience and performed more cases per year.Conclusion: THAs and TKAs performed by surgeons with the lowest revision rates in Australia show reductions in all of the leading causes of revision for both THA and TKA, in particular, causes of revision related to the technical performance of these procedures. Patient factors were similar between low revision rate surgeons and all other surgeons for both THA and TKA. Low revision rate THA surgeons were more likely to use cement fixation selectively. Low revision rate TKA surgeons were more likely to use patella resurfacing, crosslinked polyethylene, and cemented fixation. Low revision rate THA and TKA surgeons were more likely to use an AOANJRR-identified best-performing prosthesis combination and to use fewer implants identified by the AOANJRR as having a higher-than-anticipated revision rate. To reduce the rate of revision THA and TKA, surgeons should consider addressing modifiable factors related to implant selection. Future research should identify surgeon factors beyond annual case volume that are important to improving implant survivorship.Level Of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: THA is a reasonable surgical option for some patients with fragility fractures of the femoral neck, but it has the risk of prosthesis dislocation. The prosthesis combination that reduces the risk of dislocation and the rate of revision surgery is not known.Questions/purposes: In patients receiving primary THA for a femoral neck fracture, does (1) the rate of all-cause revision or (2) the reason for revision and rate of revision for dislocation differ among THA with a standard head size, large head size, dual mobility (DM), or constrained liner? (3) Is there a difference in the revision risk when patients are stratified by age at the time of surgery?Methods: Data were analyzed for 16,692 THAs performed to treat fractures of the femoral neck reported in the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) from January 2008 to December 2018, as this included the first use of DM prostheses. The AOANJRR includes information on more than 98% of arthroplasty procedures performed in Australia. Most patients were female (72%) and the mean age was 74 years ± 11. There were 8582 standard-head prostheses, 5820 large-head prostheses, 1778 DM prostheses, and 512 constrained prostheses identified. The cumulative percent revision (CPR) was determined for all causes as well as CPR for dislocation. The time to the first revision was described using Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship, with right censoring for death or closure of the database at the time of analysis. The unadjusted CPR was estimated each year of the first 10 years for standard heads, 10 years for large heads, 8 years for constrained liners, and 7 years for DM prostheses, with 95% confidence intervals using unadjusted pointwise Greenwood estimates. The results were adjusted for age, sex, femoral fixation, and head size where appropriate and were considered by age groups < 70 and ≥ 70 years.Results: When adjusted for age, sex, femoral fixation and head size, there was no difference in the rate of all-cause revision at 7 years for any of the four groups. There was no difference in the rate of all-cause revision when patients were stratified by < 70 or ≥ 70 years of age. Dislocation was the most common reason for revision (32%). When analyzing revision for dislocation alone, large-head THA had a lower rate of revision for dislocation compared with standard head (HR 0.6 [95% CI 0.4 to 0.8]; p < 0.001) and DM prostheses had a lower rate of revision for dislocation than standard head for the first 3 months (HR 0.3 [95% CI 0.1 to 0.7]; p < 0.004) but not after this time point.Conclusion: The Australian registry shows that there is no difference in the rate of all-cause revision for standard-head, large-head, DM prostheses or constrained liner THA after femoral neck fractures for all patients or for patients stratified into younger than 70 years and at least 70 years of age groups. Dislocation is the most common cause of revision. Large-head prostheses are associated with a lower revision risk for dislocation and DM prostheses have a lower rate of revision for dislocation than standard heads for the first 3 months only. Surgeons treating a femoral neck fracture with THA might consider a large head size if the diameter of the acetabulum will allow it and a DM prosthesis if a large head size is not possible. The age, life expectancy and level of function of patients with femoral neck fractures minimizes the potential long-term consequences of these prostheses. The lack of significant differences in survival between most prosthesis combinations means surgeons should continue to look for factors beyond head size and prosthesis to minimize dislocation and revision surgery.Level Of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]