Search

Background and Purpose: Joint Replacement Registries play a significant role in monitoring arthroplasty outcomes by publishing data on survivorship of individual prostheses or combinations of prostheses. The difference in outcomes can be device- or non-device-related, and these factors can be analyzed separately. Although registry data indicate that most prostheses have similar outcomes, some have a higher than anticipated rate of revision when compared to all other prostheses in their class. This report outlines how the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) has developed a method to report prostheses with a higher than expected rate of revision. These are referred to as "outlier" prostheses., Material and Methods: Since 2004, the AOANJRR has developed a standardized process for identifying outliers. This is based on a 3-stage process consisting of an automated algorithm, an extensive analysis of individual prostheses or combinations by registry staff, and finally a meeting involving a panel from the Australian Orthopaedic Association Arthroplasty Society. Outlier prostheses are listed in the Annual Report as (1) identified but no longer used in Australia, (2) those that have been re-identified and that are still used, and (3) those that are being identified for the first time., Results: 78 prostheses or prosthesis combinations have been identified as being outliers using this approach (AOANJRR 2011 Annual Report). In addition, 5 conventional hip prostheses were initially identified, but after further analysis no longer met the defined criteria. 1 resurfacing hip prosthesis was initially identified, subsequently removed from the list, and then re-identified the following year when further data were available. All unicompartmental and primary total knee prostheses identified as having a higher than expected rate of revision have continued to be re-identified., Interpretation: It is important that registries use a transparent and accountable process to identify an outlier prosthesis. This paper describes the development, implementation, assessment, and impact of the approach used by the Australian Registry.

Objectives: Studies have identified increased cancer risk among patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA) compared to the general population. However, evidence of all-cause and site-specific cancer risk associated with different bearing surfaces has varied, with previous studies having short latency periods with respect to use of modern Metal-on-Metal (MoM) bearings. Using the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) linked to Australasian Association of Cancer Registries data, our aim was to evaluate risk of all-cause and site-specific cancer according to bearing surfaces in patients undergoing THA for osteoarthritis and whether risk increased with MoM bearings. Methods: Standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated by comparing number of observed cancer cases to expected number based on incidence rate in the Australian population. All-cause and site-specific cancer rates were calculated for all conventional stemmed THA (csTHA) and resurfacing THA (rsTHA) procedures performed for osteoarthritis. Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare cancer rates for MoM, ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC) and resurfacing procedures with a comparison group comprising metal-on-polyethylene (MoP) or ceramic-on-polyethylene (CoP) procedures. Results: There were 156,516 patients with csTHA procedures and 11,321 with rsTHA procedures for osteoarthritis performed between 1999 and 2012. Incidence of all-cause cancer was significantly higher for csTHA (SIR 1.24, 95% CI 1.22–1.26) and rsTHA (SIR 1.74, 95% CI 1.39–2.04) compared to the Australian population. For csTHA, there was no significant difference in all-site cancer rates for MoM (Hazard Ratio (HR) 1.01, 95%CI 0.96–1.07) or CoC (HR 0.98, 95%CI 0.94–1.02) compared to MoP and CoP bearings. Significantly increased risk of melanoma, non-Hodgkins lymphoma, myeloma, leukaemia, prostate, colon, bladder and kidney cancer was found for csTHA and, prostate cancer, melanoma for rsTHA procedures when compared to the Australian population, although risk was not significantly different across bearing surfaces. Conclusions: csTHA and rsTHA procedures were associated with increased cancer incidence compared to the Australian population. However, no excess risk was observed for MoM or CoC procedures compared to other bearing surfaces. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Loss of glenoid fixation is a key factor affecting the survivorship of primary total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). It is not known whether the lower revision rates associated with crosslinked polyethylene (XLPE) compared with those of non-XLPE identified in hip and knee arthroplasty apply to shoulder arthroplasty.Questions/purposes: We used data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) to compare the revision rates of primary stemmed anatomic TSA using XLPE to procedures using non-XLPE. In patients receiving a primary stemmed anatomic TSA for osteoarthritis, we asked: (1) Does the rate of revision or reason for revision vary between XLPE and non-XLPE all-polyethylene glenoid components? (2) Is there any difference in the revision rate when XLPE is compared with non-XLPE across varying head sizes? (3) Is there any difference in survival among prosthesis combinations with all-polyethylene glenoid components when they are used with XLPE compared with non-XLPE?Methods: Data were extracted from the AOANJRR from April 16, 2004, to December 31, 2020. The AOANJRR collects data on more than 97% of joint replacements performed in Australia. The study population included all primary, stemmed, anatomic TSA procedures performed for osteoarthritis using all-polyethylene glenoid components. Procedures were grouped into XLPE and non-XLPE bearing surfaces for comparison. Of the 10,102 primary stemmed anatomic TSAs in the analysis, 39% (3942 of 10,102) used XLPE and 61% (6160 of 10,102) used non-XLPE. There were no differences in age, gender, or follow-up between groups. 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. Revision was defined as removal, replacement, or addition of any component of a joint replacement. The unadjusted cumulative percent revision after the primary arthroplasty (with 95% confidence intervals [CIs]) was calculated and compared using Cox proportional hazard models adjusted for age, gender, fixation, and surgeon volume. Further analyses were performed stratifying according to humeral head size, and a prosthesis-specific analysis adjusted for age and gender was also performed. This analysis was restricted to prosthesis combinations that were used at least 150 times, accounted for at least four revisions, had XLPE and non-XLPE options available, and had a minimum of 3 years of follow-up.Results: Non - XLPE had a higher risk of revision than XLPE after 1.5 years (HR 2.3 [95% CI 1.6 to 3.1]; p < 0.001). The cumulative percent revision at 12 years was 5% (95% CI 4% to 6%) for XLPE and 9% (95% CI 8% to 10%) for non-XLPE. There was no difference in the rate of revision for head sizes smaller than 44 mm. Non-XLPE had a higher rate of revision than XLPE for head sizes 44 to 50 mm after 2 years (HR 2.3 [95% CI 1.5 to 3.6]; p < 0.001) and for heads larger than 50 mm for the entire period (HR 2.2 [95% CI 1.4 to 3.6]; p < 0.001). Two prosthesis combinations fulfilled the inclusion criteria for the prosthesis-specific analysis. One had a higher risk of revision when used with non-XLPE compared with XLPE after 1.5 years (HR 3.7 [95% CI 2.2 to 6.3]; p < 0.001). For the second prosthesis combination, no difference was found in the rate of revision between the two groups.Conclusion: These AOANJRR data demonstrate that noncrosslinked, all-polyethylene glenoid components have a higher revision rate compared with crosslinked, all-polyethylene glenoid components when used in stemmed anatomic TSA for osteoarthritis. As polyethylene type is likely an important determinant of revision risk, crosslinked polyethylene should be used when available, particularly for head sizes larger than 44 mm. Further studies will need to be undertaken after larger numbers of shoulder arthroplasties have been performed to determine whether this reduction in revision risk associated with XLPE bears true for all TSA designs.Level Of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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: The ability to identify which patients are at a greater risk of early revision knee arthroplasty has important practical and resource implications. Many international arthroplasty registries administer patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to provide a holistic assessment of pain, function, and quality of life. However, few PROM scores have been evaluated as potential indicators of early revision knee arthroplasty, and earlier studies have largely focused on knee-specific measures.Questions/purposes: This national registry-based study asked: (1) Which 6-month postoperative knee-specific and generic PROM scores are associated with early revision knee arthroplasty (defined as revision surgery performed 6 to 24 months after the primary procedure)? (2) Is a clinically important improvement in PROM scores (based on thresholds for the minimal important change) after primary knee arthroplasty associated with a lower risk of early revision?Methods: Preoperative and 6-month postoperative PROM scores for patients undergoing primary knee arthroplasty were sourced from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) and Arthroplasty Clinical Outcomes Registry National. Between January 2013 and December 2020, PROM data were available for 19,402 primary total knee arthroplasties; these data were linked to AOANJRR data on revision knee arthroplasty. Of these, 3448 procedures were excluded because they did not have 6-month PROM data, they had not reached the 6-month postoperative point, they had died before 24 months, or they had received revision knee arthroplasty before the 6-month PROMs assessment. After these exclusions, data were analyzed for 15,954 primary knee arthroplasties. Associations between knee-specific (knee pain, Oxford Knee Score, and 12-item Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score [KOOS-12]) or generic PROM scores (5-level EuroQol quality of life instrument [EQ-5D], EQ VAS, perceived change, and satisfaction) and revision surgery were explored using t-tests, chi-square tests, and regression models. Ninety-four revision procedures were performed at 6 to 24 months, most commonly for infection (39% [37 procedures]). The early revision group was younger than the unrevised group (mean age 64 years versus 68 years) and a between-group difference in American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade was noted. Apart from a small difference in preoperative low back pain for the early revision group (mean low back pain VAS 4.2 points for the early revision group versus 3.3 points for the unrevised group), there were no between-group differences in preoperative knee-specific or generic PROM scores on univariate analysis. As the inclusion of ASA grade or low back pain score did not alter the model results, the final multivariable model included only the most clinically plausible confounders (age and gender) as covariates. Multivariable models (adjusting for age and gender) were also used to examine the association between a clinically important improvement in PROM scores (based on published thresholds for minimal important change) and the likelihood of early revision.Results: After adjusting for age and gender, poor postoperative knee pain, Oxford, KOOS-12, EQ-5D, and EQ VAS scores were all associated with early revision. A one-unit increase (worsening) in knee pain at 6 months was associated with a 31% increase in the likelihood of revision (RR 1.31 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19 to 1.43]; p < 0.001). Reflecting the reversed scoring direction, a one-unit increase (improvement) in Oxford or KOOS-12 score was associated with a 9% and 5% reduction in revision risk, respectively (RR for Oxford: 0.91 [95% CI 0.90 to 0.93]; p < 0.001; RR for KOOS-12 summary: 0.95 [95% CI 0.94 to 0.97]; p < 0.001). Patient dissatisfaction (RR 6.8 [95% CI 3.7 to 12.3]) and patient-perceived worsening (RR 11.7 [95% CI 7.4 to 18.5]) at 6 months were also associated with an increased likelihood of early revision. After adjusting for age and gender, patients who did not achieve a clinically important improvement in PROM scores had a higher risk of early revision (RR 2.9 for the knee pain VAS, RR 4.2 for the Oxford Knee Score, RR 6.3 to 8.6 for KOOS-12, and RR 2.3 for EQ-5D) compared with those who did (reference group).Conclusion: Knee-specific and generic PROM scores offer an efficient approach to identifying patients at greater risk of early revision surgery, using either the 6-month score or the magnitude of improvement. These data indicate that surgeons can use single- and multi-item measures to detect a patient-perceived unsuccessful surgical outcome at 6 months after primary knee arthroplasty. Surgeons should be alert to poor PROM scores at 6 months or small improvements in scores (for example, less than 2 points for knee pain VAS or less than 10.5 points for Oxford Knee Score), which signal a need for direct patient follow-up or expedited clinical review.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 collection of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) following arthroplasty is common. PROMs data collection programs seek to maximise completeness in order to minimise selection bias and optimise representativeness of the sample attained. We aimed to determine if patient factors influence variation in PROMs program completeness between-hospitals. Methods: Using data from a national arthroplasty registry PROMs program, we tested for associations between patient characteristics (age, sex, body mass index [BMI] and American Society of Anaesthesiologists [ASA] class) and both potential completeness (registration completeness: the proportion of arthroplasty patients that were registered in the PROMs electronic system) and actual completeness (response completeness: the proportion of arthroplasty patients who provided PROMs data) using linear regression. Results: When using all elective primary total hip, knee or shoulder arthroplasty procedures (N = 31,801) from 43 hospitals as the denominator, overall registration completeness was 52%, varying from 5 to 87% between hospitals. Overall pre-operative response completeness was 46%, varying from 5 to 82% between hospitals. There were no significant associations between hospital-level registration completeness or response completeness and age, sex, BMI or ASA score. Conclusion: Completeness rates of a PROMs program in arthroplasty varied widely between hospitals but in the absence of a relationship between measured patient factors and completeness rates, the observed variation likely relates to local site factors such as access to patients, local resources and clinician engagement with the program. Efforts to improve the rates of completeness of arthroplasty PROMs programs at individual hospitals may not improve the representativeness of the sample. Plain English summary: Hospitals vary in how completely they include and follow up patients when measuring patient-reported health. It is important to know if the completeness of inclusion and follow up by hospitals is affected by patient characteristics. This study addresses that problem by using data from a national patient outcome survey involving over 30,000 patients from 43 hospitals to look at the correlation between certain patient characteristics (like age, sex, obesity and general health) and the rates of inclusion and follow up for each hospital. Rates of inclusion (registering patients in the program) and follow up rates varied widely between hospitals (from 5 to 87%). The rates of inclusion and follow up were not correlated with patient age, sex, body mass index or their general health. These findings suggest that the variation between hospitals in the rates of inclusion of joint replacement patients in health surveys are not due to differences in patient characteristics. The differences may be due to local hospital factors, such as resources and clinician engagement. [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: When analyzing the outcomes of joint arthroplasty, an important factor to consider is patient comorbidities. The presence of multiple comorbidities has been associated with longer hospital stays, more postoperative complications, and increased mortality. The American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status classification system score is a measure of a patient's overall health and has been shown to be associated with complications and mortality after joint arthroplasty. The Rx-Risk score is another measure for determining the number of different health conditions for which an individual is treated, with a possible score ranging from 0 to 47.Questions/purposes: For patients undergoing THA or TKA, we asked: (1) Which metric, the Rx-Risk score or the ASA score, correlates more closely with 30- and 90-day mortality after TKA or THA? (2) Is the Rx-Risk score correlated with the ASA score?Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) database linked to two other national databases, the National Death Index (NDI) database and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS), a dispensing database. Linkage to the NDI provided outcome information on patient death, including the fact of and date of death. Linkage to the PBS was performed to obtain records of all medicines dispensed to patients undergoing a joint replacement procedure. Patients were included if they had undergone either a THA (119,076 patients, 131,336 procedures) or TKA (182,445 patients, 215,712 procedures) with a primary diagnosis of osteoarthritis, performed between 2013 and 2017. We excluded patients with missing ASA information (THA: 3% [3055 of 119,076]; TKA: 2% [4095 of 182,445]). This left 127,761 primary THA procedures performed in 116,021 patients (53% [68,037 of 127,761] were women, mean age 68 ± 11 years) and 210,501 TKA procedures performed in 178,350 patients (56% [117,337 of 210,501] were women, mean age 68 ± 9 years) included in this study. Logistic regression models were used to determine the concordance of the ASA and Rx-Risk scores and 30-day and 90-day postoperative mortality. The Spearman correlation coefficient (r) was used to estimate the correlation between the ASA score and Rx-Risk score. All analyses were performed separately for THAs and TKAs.Results: We found both the ASA and Rx-Risk scores had high concordance with 30-day mortality after THA (ASA: c-statistic 0.83 [95% CI 0.79 to 0.86]; Rx-Risk: c-statistic 0.82 [95% CI 0.79 to 0.86]) and TKA (ASA: c-statistic 0.73 [95% CI 0.69 to 0.78]; Rx-Risk: c-statistic 0.74 [95% CI 0.70 to 0.79]). Although both scores were strongly associated with death, their correlation was moderate for patients undergoing THA (r = 0.45) and weak for TKA (r = 0.38). However, the median Rx-Risk score did increase with increasing ASA score. For example, for THAs, the median Rx-Risk score was 1, 3, 5, and 7 for ASA scores 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. For TKAs, the median Rx-Risk score was 2, 4, 5, and 7 for ASA scores 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively.Conclusion: The ASA physical status and RxRisk were associated with 30-day and 90-day mortality; however, the scores were only weakly to moderately correlated with each other. This suggests that although both scores capture a similar level of patient illness, each score may be capturing different aspects of health. The Rx-Risk may be used as a complementary measure to the ASA score.Level Of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is increasing interest in the development of statistical models that can be used to estimate risk of adverse patient outcomes after joint arthroplasty. Competing risk approaches have been recommended to estimate risk of longer-term revision, which is often likely to be precluded by the competing risk of death. However, a common approach is to ignore the competing risk by treating death as a censoring event and using standard survival models such as Cox regression. It is well-known that this approach can overestimate the event risk for population-level estimates, but the impact on the estimation of a patient's individualized risk after joint arthroplasty has not been explored.Questions/purposes: We performed this study to (1) determine whether using a competing risk or noncompeting risk method affects the accuracy of predictive models for joint arthroplasty revision and (2) determine the magnitude of difference that using a competing risks versus noncompeting risks approach will make to predicted risks for individual patients.Methods: The predictive performance of a standard Cox model, with competing risks treated as censoring events, was compared with the performance of two competing risks approaches, the cause-specific Cox model and Fine-Gray model. Models were trained and tested using data pertaining to 531,304 TKAs and 274,618 THAs recorded in the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry between January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2017. The registry is a large database with near-complete capture and follow-up of all hip and knee joint arthroplasty in Australia from 2003 onwards, making it an ideal setting for this study. The performance of the three modeling approaches was compared in two different prediction settings: prediction of the 10-year risk of all-cause revision after TKA and prediction of revision for periprosthetic fracture after THA. The calibration and discrimination of each approach were compared using the concordance index, integrated Brier scores, and calibration plots. Calibration of 10-year risk estimates was further assessed within subgroups of age by comparing the observed and predicted proportion of events. Estimated 10-year risks from each model were also compared in three hypothetical patients with different risk profiles to determine whether differences in population-level performance metrics would translate into a meaningful difference for individual patient predictions.Results: The standard Cox and two competing risks models showed near-identical ability to distinguish between high-risk and low-risk patients (c-index 0.64 [95% CI, 0.64 to 0.64] for all three modeling approaches for TKAs and 0.66 [95% CI 0.66 to 0.66] for THA). All models performed similarly in patients younger than 75 years, but for patients aged 75 years and older, the standard Cox model overestimated the risk of revision more than the cause-specific Cox and Fine-Gray model did. These results were echoed when predictions were made for hypothetical individual patients. For patients with a low competing risk of mortality, the 10-year predicted risks from the standard Cox, cause-specific Cox, and Fine-Gray models were similar for TKAs and THAs. However, a larger difference was observed for hypothetical 89-year-old patients with increased mortality risk. In TKAs, the revision risk for an 89-year-old patient was so low that this difference was negligible (0.83% from the cause-specific Cox model versus 1.1% from the standard Cox model). However, for THAs, where older age is a risk factor for both death and revision for periprosthetic fracture, a larger difference was observed in the 10-year predicted risks for a hypothetical 89-year-old patient (3.4% from the cause-specific Cox model versus 5.2% from the standard Cox model).Conclusion: When developing models to predict longer-term revision of joint arthroplasty, failing to use a competing risks modeling approach will result in overestimating the revision risk for patients with a high risk of mortality during the surveillance period. However, even in an extreme instance, where both the frequency of the event of interest and the competing risk of death are high, the largest absolute difference in predicted 10-year risk for an individual patient was just 1.8%, which may not be of consequence to an individual. Despite these findings, when developing or using risk prediction models, researchers and clinicians should be aware of how competing risks were handled in the modeling process, particularly if the model is intended for use populations where the mortality risk is high.Level Of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: We evaluated anatomic total shoulders undergoing early revision (less than two years) in the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) and the Kaiser Permanente Shoulder Arthroplasty Registry (KPSAR). Methods: A cross-sectional comparison of both registries was performed between the years of 2009 and 2012. Only patients who underwent anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty for a primary diagnosis of osteoarthritis were included. Aggregate-level data of patients undergoing early revisions done within two years of index arthroplasty were evaluated, and descriptive analysis was conducted. Results: During the study period, 4614 patients were identified in the AOANJRR compared to 2036 in the KPSAR. Rotator cuff pathology, component loosening, and prosthetic instability were among the most common reasons for revision in both registries. A higher rate of revision in the AOANJRR was found to be secondary to the failure of one specific prosthesis, which has since been discontinued Discussion: Comparing reasons for early revision in total shoulder arthroplasty revealed several similarities between the AOANJRR and KPSAR. Differences were also noted, and this study served to highlight the importance prosthesis selection can play in determining outcomes. Cooperation among registries may allow for earlier identification of risk factors for failure in shoulder arthroplasty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patellofemoral replacements (PFRs) have a higher rate of revision than unicompartmental knee arthroplasty or TKA. However, there is little information regarding why PFRs are revised, the components used for these revisions, or the outcome of the revision procedure. Some contend that PFR is a bridging procedure that can easily be revised to a TKA with similar results as a primary TKA; however, others dispute this suggestion.Questions/purposes: (1) In the setting of a large national registry, what were the reasons for revision of PFR to TKA and was the level of TKA constraint used in the revision associated with a subsequent risk of rerevision? (2) Is the risk of revision of the TKA used to revise a PFR greater than the risk of revision after a primary TKA and greater than the risk of rerevision after revision TKA?Methods: Data were obtained from the Australian Orthopaedic Association Joint Replacement Registry through December 31, 2016, for TKA revision procedures after PFR. Because revisions for infection may be staged procedures resulting in further planned operations, for the revision analyses, these were excluded. There were 3251 PFRs, 482 of which were revised to TKA during the 17-year study period. The risk of second revision was calculated using Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship for PFRs revised to TKAs, and that risk was compared with the risk of first revision after TKA and also with the risk of a second revision after revision TKA. Hazard ratios (HRs) from Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare second revision rates among the different levels of prosthesis constraint used in the index revision after PFR (specifically, cruciate-retaining versus cruciate-substituting).Results: The main reasons for revising a PFR to TKA were progression of disease (56%), loosening (17%), and pain (12%). With the numbers available for analysis, there was no difference in the risk of a second revision when a PFR was revised to a cruciate-retaining TKA than when it was revised to a cruciate-substituting TKA (HR, 1.24 [0.65-2.36]; p = 0.512). A total of 204 (42%) of the PFR revisions had the patella component revised when the PFR was converted to a TKA. There difference in rates of second revision when the patella component was revised or not revised (HR, 1.01 [0.55-1.85]; p = 0.964). When we eliminated the devices that ceased to be used before 2005 (older devices), we found no change in the overall risk of repeat revision. The risk of a PFR that was revised to a TKA undergoing a second revision was greater than the risk of TKA undergoing a first revision (HR, 2.39 [1.77-3.24]; p < 0.001), but it was less than the risk of a revision TKA undergoing a second revision (HR, 0.60 [0.43-0.81]; p = 0.001).Conclusions: The risk of second revision when a PFR is revised is not altered if cruciate-retaining or posterior-stabilized TKA is used for the revision nor if the patella component is revised or not revised. The risk of repeat revision after revision of a PFR to a TKA was much higher than the risk of revision after a primary TKA, and these findings did not change when we analyzed only devices in use since 2005. When PFR is used for the management of isolated patellofemoral osteoarthritis, patients should be counselled not only about the high revision rate of the primary procedure, but also the revision rate after TKA. Further studies regarding the functional outcomes of these procedures may help clarify the value of PFRs and subsequent revisions.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]

Background: The incidence of joint arthroplasty is increasing worldwide. International estimates of future demand for joint arthroplasty have used models that propose either an exponential future increase, despite obvious system constraints, or static increases, which do not account for past trends. Country-specific projection estimates that address limitations of past projections are necessary. In Australia, a high-income country with the 7th highest incidence of TKA and 15th highest incidence of THA of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries, the volume of TKAs and THAs increased 198% between 1994 and 2014.Questions/purpose: To determine the projected incidence and volume of primary TKAs and THAs from 2014 to 2046 in the Australian population older than 40 years.Methods: Australian State and Territory Health Department data were used to identify TKAs and THAs performed between 1994 and 1995 and 2013 and 2014. The Australian Bureau of Statistics was the source of the population estimates for the same periods and population-projected estimates until 2046. The incidence rate (IR), 95% CI, and prediction interval (PI) of TKAs and THAs per 100,000 Australian citizens older than 40 years were calculated. Future IRs were estimated using a logistic model, and volume was calculated from projected IR and population. The logistic growth model assumes the existence of an upper limit of the TKA and THA incidences and a growth rate directly related to this incidence. At the beginning, when the observed incidence is much lower than the asymptote, the increase is exponential, but it decreases as it approaches the upper limit.Results: A 66% increase in the IR of primary THAs between 2013 and 2046 is projected for Australia (2013: IR = 307 per 100,000, [95% CI, 262-329 per 100,000] compared with 2046: IR= 510 per 100,000, [95% PI, 98-567 per 100,000]), which translates to a 219% increase in the volume during this period. For TKAs the IR is expected to increase by 26% by 2046 (IR = 575 per 100,000; 95% PI, 402-717 per 100,000) compared with 2013 (IR = 437 per 100,000; 95% CI, 397-479 per 100,000) and the volume to increase by 142%.Conclusion: A large increase in the volume of arthroplasties is expected using a conservative projection model that accounts for past surgical trends and future population changes in Australia. These findings have international implications, as they show that using country- specific, conservative projection approaches, a substantial increase in the number of these procedures is expected. This increase in joint arthroplasty volume will require appropriate workforce planning, resource allocation, and budget planning so that demand can be met.Level Of Evidence: Level II, economic and decision analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Associations between socioeconomic position (SEP) and the uptake of primary total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) is not well understood in the Australian population, thus potentially limiting equitable allocation of healthcare resources. We used the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOA NJRR) to examine whether geographic or socioeconomic variations exist in TSA performed for a diagnosis of osteoarthritis 2007-11 for all Australians aged ≥40 years.Methods: Primary anatomical and reverse TSA data were extracted from the AOA NJRR which captures >99 % of all TSA nationally. Residential addresses were cross-referenced to Australian Bureau of Statistics 2011 Census data to identify SEP measured at the area-level (categorised into deciles), and geographic location defined as Australian State/Territory of residence. We used a Poisson distribution for the number of TSA over the study period, and modelled the effects of age, SEP and geographic location using multilevel modelling.Results: During 2007-11, we observed 6,123 TSA (62.2 % female). For both sexes, TSA showed a proportional increase with advancing age. TSA did not vary by SEP or geographic location, with the exception of greater TSA among men in New South Wales.Conclusions: Using a national registry approach we provide the first reliable picture of TSA at a national level. The uptake of TSA was equitable across SEP; however, there was some variation between the States/Territories. With an aging population, it is imperative that monitoring of major surgical procedures continues, and be focused toward determining whether TSA uptake correlates with need across different social and area-based groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Joint arthroplasty patients have a high prevalence of co-morbidities and this impacts their surgical outcomes. There are different ways to ascertain co-morbidities and appropriate measurement is necessary. The purpose of this study was to: (1) describe the prevalence of co-morbidities in a cohort of total hip arthroplasty (THA) and knee arthroplasty (TKA) patients using two diagnoses-based measures (Charlson and Elixhauser) and one prescription-based measure (RxRisk-V); (2) compare the agreement of co-morbidities amongst the measures.Methods: A cross-sectional study of Australian veterans undergoing THAs (n = 11,848) and TKAs (n = 18,972) between 2001 and 2012 was conducted. Seventeen co-morbidities were identified using the Charlson, 30 using the Elixhauser, and 42 using the RxRisk-V measure. Agreement between co-morbidities was calculated using Kappa (κ) statistics.Results: Combining measures, 64 conditions were identified, of these 28 were only identified using the RxRisk-V, 11 using the Elixhauser, and 2 using the Charlson. The most prevalent conditions was pain treated with anti-inflammatories (58.7% THAs, 55.9% TKAs), pain treated with narcotics (55.0% THAs, 50.9% TKAs), hypertension (56.0% THAs and TKAs), and anticoagulation disorders (53.0% THAs, 48.6% TKAs). Diabetes was the only condition with substantial agreement (all κ > 0.6) amongst all measures. When comparing the diagnoses based algorithms, agreement was high for overlapping conditions (all κ > 0.71).Conclusions: Different measures identified different co-morbidities, provided different estimates for the same co-morbidity, and had different levels of agreement for common co-morbidities. This highlights the importance of understanding co-morbidity measures and using them appropriately in studies and case-mix adjustments analyses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Relatively little is known about the social distribution of total knee joint replacement (TKR) uptake in Australia. We examine associations between socioeconomic status (SES) and TKR performed for diagnosed osteoarthritis 2003–10 for all Australian males and females aged ≥30 yr. Methods: Data of primary TKR (n = 213,018, 57.4% female) were ascertained from a comprehensive national joint replacement registry. Residential addresses were matched to Australian Census data to identify area-level social disadvantage, and categorised into deciles. Estimated TKR rates were calculated. Poisson regression was used to model the relative risk (RR) of age-adjusted TKR per 1,000py, stratified by sex and SES. Results: A negative relationship was observed between TKR rates and SES deciles. Females had a greater rate of TKR than males. Surgery utilisation was greatest for all adults aged 70-79 yr. In that age group differences in estimated TKR per 1,000py between deciles were greater for 2010 than 2003 (females: 2010 RR 4.32 and 2003 RR 3.67; males: 2010 RR 2.04 and 2003 RR 1.78). Conclusions: Identifying factors associated with TKR utilisation and SES may enhance resource planning and promote surgery utilisation for end-stage osteoarthritis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and purpose Joint Replacement Registries play a significant role in monitoring arthroplasty outcomes by publishing data on survivorship of individual prostheses or combinations of prostheses. The difference in outcomes can be device- or non-device-related, and these factors can be analyzed separately. Although registry data indicate that most prostheses have similar outcomes, some have a higher than anticipated rate of revision when compared to all other prostheses in their class. This report outlines how the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) has developed a method to report prostheses with a higher than expected rate of revision. These are referred to as 'outlier' prostheses. Material and methods Since 2004, the AOANJRR has developed a standardized process for identifying outliers. This is based on a 3-stage process consisting of an automated algorithm, an extensive analysis of individual prostheses or combinations by registry staff, and finally a meeting involving a panel from the Australian Orthopaedic Association Arthroplasty Society. Outlier prostheses are listed in the Annual Report as (1) identified but no longer used in Australia, (2) those that have been re-identified and that are still used, and (3) those that are being identified for the first time. Results 78 prostheses or prosthesis combinations have been identified as being outliers using this approach (AOANJRR 2011 Annual Report). In addition, 5 conventional hip prostheses were initially identified, but after further analysis no longer met the defined criteria. 1 resurfacing hip prosthesis was initially identified, subsequently removed from the list, and then re-identified the following year when further data were available. All unicompartmental and primary total knee prostheses identified as having a higher than expected rate of revision have continued to be re-identified. Interpretation It is important that registries use a transparent and accountable process to identify an outlier prosthesis. This paper describes the development, implementation, assessment, and impact of the approach used by the Australian Registry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and purpose Recent years have seen a rapid increase in the use of resurfacing hip arthroplasty despite the lack of literature on the long-term outcome. In particular, there is little evidence regarding the outcome of revisions of primary resurfacing. The purpose of this analysis was to examine the survivorship of primary resurfacing hip arthroplasties that have been revised. Patients and methods Over 12,000 primary resurfacing hip arthroplasties were recorded by the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry between September 1, 1999 and December 31, 2008. During this time, 397 revisions for reasons other than infection were reported for these primary resurfacings and classified as acetabular, femoral, or both acetabular and femoral revisions. The survivorship of the different types of revisions was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using proportional hazard models. Additionally, the outcome of a femoral-only revision was compared to that of primary conventional total hip arthroplasty. Results Acetabular-only revision had a high risk of re-revision compared to femoral-only and both acetabular and femoral revision (5-year cumulative per cent revision of 20%, 7%, and 5% respectively). Femoral-only revision had a risk of re-revision similar to that of revision of both the acetabular and femoral components. Femoral-only revision had over twice the risk of revision of primary conventional total hip arthroplasty. Interpretation Revision of a primary resurfacing arthroplasty is associated with a major risk of re-revision. The best outcome is achieved when either the femoral-only or both the acetabular and femoral components are revised. Technically straightforward femoral-only revisions generally have a worse outcome than a primary conventional total hip arthroplasty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors reflect on the role of orthopedic research registries. They suggest that inadequate research regulation and a lack of post-market surveillance have led to patients not being protected from harmful implants and procedures. They argue that regulations should be changed to require the registry-based monitoring of new implants during the phase of limited introduction and that those changes should be accompanied by a change in the way that orthopedic surgeons think and act.

In the article the guest editor reflects on the value of information received from registries and clinical trials. Registries provide community-based data which allow surgeons to perform arthroplasty surgery using best practice information. He opines that clinical trials and registries provide different information and both are important for improving joint replacement outcomes.