Search

Recent concerns surrounding joint replacements that have a higher than expected rate of revision have led to stricter controls by regulatory authorities with regards to the introduction of new devices into the marketplace. Implant post-market surveillance remains important, and joint replacement registries are ideally placed to perform this role. This review examined if and how joint replacement registries identified outlier prostheses, outlined problems and suggested solutions to improve post-market surveillance. A search was performed of all joint replacement registries that had electronic or published reports detailing the outcomes of joint replacement. These reports were examined for registry identification of outlier prostheses. Five registries publicly identified outlier prostheses in their reports and the methods by which this was performed, and three others had internal reports. Identification of outlier prostheses is one area that may improve overall joint replacement outcomes; however, further research is needed to determine the optimum methods for identification, including the threshold, the comparator and the numbers required for notification of devices. Co-operation of registries at a global level may lead to earlier identification of devices and thereby further improve the results of joint replacement.

Centers of excellence and bundled payment models have driven perioperative optimization and surgical site infection (SSI) prevention with decolonization protocols and antibiotic prophylaxis strategies. We sought to evaluate time trends in the incidence of deep SSI and its causative organisms after six orthopaedic procedures in a US-based integrated healthcare system.We conducted a population-level time-trend study using data from Kaiser Permanente's orthopaedic registries. All patients who underwent primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), total knee arthroplasty (TKA), elective total hip arthroplasty (THA), hip fracture repair, shoulder arthroplasty, and spine surgery were identified (2009 to 2020). The annual incidence of 90-day deep SSI was identified according to the National Healthcare Safety Network/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines with manual chart validation for identified infections. Poisson regression was used to evaluate annual trends in SSI incidence with surgical year as the exposure of interest. Annual trends in overall incidence and organism-specific incidence were considered.The final study sample was composed of 465,797 primary orthopaedic procedures. Over the 12-year study period, a decreasing trend in deep SSI was observed for ACLR and hip fracture repair. Although there was variation in incidence rates for specific operative years for TKA, elective THA, shoulder arthroplasty, and spine surgery, no consistent decreasing trends over time were found. Decreasing rates of Staphylococcus aureus infections over time after hip fracture repair, shoulder arthroplasty, and spine surgery and decreasing trends in antibiotic resistance after elective THA and spine surgery were also observed. Increasing trends of polymicrobial infections were observed after TKA and Cutibacterium acnes after elective THA.The overall incidence of deep SSI after six orthopaedic procedures was rare. Decreasing SSI rates were observed for ACLR and hip fracture repair within our US-based healthcare system. Polymicrobial infections after TKA and Cutibacterium acnes after elective THA warrant closer surveillance.IV.

BACKGROUND As indications for elective total hip arthroplasty (THA) expand to younger patients, we sought to (1) compare revision risk following primary elective THA in patients

Cementless total hip arthroplasty (THA) femoral stems are the most commonly selected prostheses in the United States (US). Optimal stem geometry remains controversial with excellent survivorship reported for many designs. We compared cause-specific stem revision of single-wedge versus double-wedge designs from a multi-center US cohort.Data from an integrated healthcare network's total joint replacement registry was used to conduct a cohort study. Primary elective cementless THA were identified (2001 to 2018). Implant exposure groups were classified by design geometry using the system proposed by Khanuja et. al. Type 1 single-wedge (n=11,082) and type 2 double-wedge (n=32,380) designs were compared, and other design types were excluded; the final study cohort comprised 43,462 THA. Cause-specific multivariable Cox regressions were used to evaluate risk for revision due to infection or aseptic reasons, including loosening, instability, periprosthetic fracture, or other reasons.After adjustment for covariates, a higher aseptic revision risk was observed for type 1 when compared to type 2 designs (hazard ratio [HR]=1.91, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.33-2.75). When looking at specific revision reasons, revision for aseptic loosening (HR=3.46, 95% CI=2.24-5.34), was higher for type 1 versus type 2 designs. No differences were found for septic revision, instability, periprosthetic fracture, or revisions for other reasons.Type 1 single wedge designs were found to have a higher risk of revision due to aseptic loosening relative to type 2 double wedge designs. Femoral stem geometry should be considered when selecting a cementless femoral implant.

BACKGROUND: Dual-mobility cups in THA were designed to reduce prosthesis instability and the subsequent risk of revision surgery in high-risk patients, such as those with hip fractures. However, there are limited data from clinical studies reporting a revision benefit of dual-mobility over conventional THA. Collaboration between anthroplasty registries provides an opportunity to describe international practice variation and compare between-country, all-cause revision rates for dual-mobility and conventional THA. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We summarized observational data from multiple arthroplasty registries for patients receiving either a dual-mobility or conventional THA to ask: (1) Is dual-mobility use associated with a difference in risk of all-cause revision surgery compared with conventional THA? (2) Are there specific patient characteristics associated with dual-mobility use in the hip fracture population? (3) Has the use of dual-mobility constructs changed over time in patients receiving a THA for hip fracture? METHODS: Six member registries of the International Society of Arthroplasty Registries (from Australia, Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States) provided custom aggregate data reports stratified by acetabular cup type (dual-mobility or conventional THA) in primary THA for hip fracture between January 1, 2002, and December 31, 2019; surgical approach; and patient demographic data (sex, mean age, American Society of Anesthesiologists class, and BMI). The cumulative percent revision and mortality were calculated for each registry. To determine a global hazard ratio of all-cause revision for dual-mobility compared with conventional THA designs, we used a pseudoindividual patient data approach to pool Kaplan-Meier prosthesis revision data from each registry and perform a meta-analysis. The pseudoindividual patient data approach is a validated technique for meta-analysis of aggregate time-to-event survival data, such as revision surgery, from multiple sources. Data were available for 15,024 dual-mobility THAs and 97,200 conventional THAs performed for hip fractures during the study period. RESULTS: After pooling of complete Kaplan-Meier survival data from all six registries, the cumulative percent revision for conventional THA was 4.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.2% to 4.5%) and 4.7% (95% CI 4.3% to 5.3%) for dual-mobility THA at 5 years. We did not demonstrate a lower risk of all-cause revision for patients receiving dual-mobility over conventional THA designs for hip fracture in the meta-analysis once between-registry differences were adjusted for (HR 0.96 [95% CI 0.86 to 1.06]). A lower proportion of dual-mobility procedures were revised for dislocation than conventional THAs (0.9% versus 1.4%) but a higher proportion were revised for infection (1.2% versus 0.8%). In most registries, a greater proportion of dual-mobility THA patients were older, had more comorbidities, and underwent a posterior approach compared with conventional THA (p < 0.001). The proportion of dual-mobility THA used to treat hip fractures increased in each registry over time and constituted 21% (2438 of 11,874) of all THA procedures in 2019. CONCLUSION: The proportion of dual-mobility THAs in patients with hip fractures increased over time, but there was large variation in use across countries represented here. Dual-mobility cups were not associated with a reduction in the overall risk of revision surgery in patients with hip fractures. A randomized controlled trial powered to detect the incidence of dislocation and subsequent revision surgery is required to clarify the efficacy of dual-mobility cups to treat hip fractures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

We sought to evaluate the risk of aseptic revision in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) patients who have and do not have a history of primary or revision arthroplasty of a different major joint.We conducted a matched cohort study using data from Kaiser Permanente's arthroplasty registries. Patients who underwent primary unilateral TKA (index knee) were identified (2009-2018). Two matches based on exposure history were performed: (1) 33,714 TKAs with a history of primary arthroplasty of a different joint (contralateral knee, either hip, and/or either shoulder) were matched to 67,121 TKAs without an arthroplasty history and (2) 597 TKAs with a history of aseptic revision in a different joint were matched to 1,190 TKAs with a history of a prior arthroplasty in a different joint, but without any revision. After the matches were performed, Cox regressions were used to evaluate aseptic revision risk of the index knee using the no history groups as the reference in regression models.No difference in aseptic revision risk for the index knee was observed when comparing patients who had a prior primary arthroplasty in a different joint to those who did not have an arthroplasty history (hazard ratio = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.86-1.06). Those patients who did not have any prior aseptic revision history in a different joint had higher risk of aseptic revision in the index knee (hazard ratio = 2.06, 95% CI = 1.17-3.63).Patients who had a prior revision history had over a 2-fold higher risk of aseptic revision in the index knee, warranting close surveillance of these patients.Level III.

Previous studies have documented racial and ethnic disparities in total joint arthroplasty (TJA) utilization in the United States. A potential mediator of healthcare disparities is unequal access to care, and studies have suggested that disparities may be ameliorated in systems of universal access. The purpose of this study was to assess whether racial/ethnic disparities in TJA utilization persist in a universally insured population of patients enrolled in a managed healthcare system.This retrospective cohort study used data from a US integrated healthcare system (2015 to 2019). Patients aged 50 years and older with a diagnosis of hip or knee osteoarthritis were included. The outcome of interest was utilization of primary total hip arthroplasty and/or total knee arthroplasty, and the exposure of interest was race/ethnicity. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were modeled using multivariable Poisson regression controlling for confounders.There were 99,548 patients in the hip analysis and 290,324 in the knee analysis. Overall, 10.2% of the patients were Black, 20.5% were Hispanic, 9.6% were Asian, and 59.7% were White. In the multivariable analysis, utilization of primary total hip arthroplasty was significantly lower for all minority groups including Black (IRR, 0.55, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52-0.57, P0.0001), Hispanic (IRR, 0.63, 95% CI, 0.60-0.66, P0.0001), and Asian (IRR, 0.64, 95% CI, 0.61-0.68, P0.0001). Similarly, utilization of primary total knee arthroplasty was significantly lower for all minority groups including Black (IRR, 0.52, 95% CI, 0.49-0.54, P0.0001), Hispanic (IRR, 0.72, 95% CI, 0.70-0.75, P0.0001), and Asian (IRR, 0.60, 95% CI, 0.57-0.63, P0.0001) (all in comparison with White as reference).In this study of TJA utilization in a universally insured population of patients enrolled in a managed healthcare system, disparities on the basis of race and ethnicity persisted. Additional research is required to determine the reasons for this finding and to identify interventions which could ameliorate these disparities.

In an observational study, to investigate the treatment effect, one common strategy is to match the control subjects to the treated subjects. The outcomes between the two groups are then compared after the treatment-control match. However, when the outcome is rare, detection of an outcome difference can be challenging. An alternative approach is to compare the treatment or exposure discrepancy after matching subjects with the outcome (cases) to subjects without the outcome (referents). Throughout the article, we follow the tradition to call this the matched “case-control” approach instead of the matched “case-referent” approach. We reserve “control” to mean not taking the treatment, and the abbreviation TC (treatment-control) and CC (case-control) when possible confusion may arise. We derive conditions when the matched CC approach has more power for testing the treatment effect and examine its empirical performance in simulations and in our data example. We also show that the CC approach gives better match quality in our study of the effect of long vs. short stay in the hospital after joint surgery.

This study assesses hip fracture surgery volumes among older individuals in California during the pandemic compared with prepandemic rates.