Search

Background: Loosening remains one of the most common reasons for revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Cement viscosity has a potential role in reducing revision rates for loosening. The aim of this study was to assess the outcome for loosening of the 5 most used cemented knee prostheses by constraint type, based on the cement viscosity type used.Methods: There were 214,708 TKA procedures performed between 1999 and 2020 for a diagnosis of osteoarthritis using the 5 most commonly used minimally stabilized, posterior stabilized, and medial pivot design cemented tibial components. Only procedures with a cemented tibial component were included. Outcomes for two different cement viscosities, 140,060 high viscosity and 74,648 low viscosity cement, were compared for each fixation type within each of the three stability groups.Results: There was no difference in a risk of all-cause revision when high viscosity cement was used compared to low viscosity cement for minimally stabilized prostheses (hazards ratio [HR] 1.07 [95% CI 0.99-1.15], P = .09), posterior stabilized prostheses (HR 1.03 [95% CI 0.95-1.11], P = .53), and medial pivot design prostheses (HR 1.06 [95% CI 0.80-1.41], P = .67). No difference was observed between cement viscosity types for any of the prosthesis constraint types when aseptic loosening was assessed.Conclusions: We found no difference in the risk of revision for any reason, or for loosening, with cement viscosity for the most commonly used minimally stabilized, posterior stabilized, and medial pivot TKA. The role of cement viscosity in the risk of TKA revision remains unclear and further research is required.Level Of Evidence: Level III Retrospective comparative study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Modularity is an integral element of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA). Glenosphere diameter is a key component, but its effect on revision rate is unknown. The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between glenosphere size and revision rates in RTSA procedures. Data from a large national arthroplasty registry were analyzed for the period April 2004 to 31 December 2019. The study population included all primary RTSA procedures using glenosphere sizes <38 mm, 38-40 mm, and >40 mm. A subanalysis of glenosphere sizes for each of the 3 most commonly implanted prostheses and further analyses by patient age and gender were also performed. The rate of revision was determined by Kaplan-Meier estimates, with comparisons by Cox proportional hazard models. There were 28,817 primary RTSA procedures. Glenosphere sizes <38 mm had a higher revision rate compared to 38-40-mm glenospheres (hazard ratio [HR] 1.28, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.11, 1.48, P <.001) and >40-mm sizes (HR 1.35, 95% CI 1.15, 1.59, P <.001). Males with <38-mm and 38-40-mm glenospheres had significantly higher revision rates compared to >40-mm glenospheres (HR 1.49, 95% CI 1.21, 1.83, P <.001; and HR 1.28, 95% CI 1.03, 1.58, P =.025, respectively). Females with <38-mm and >40-mm glenospheres had higher revision rates compared to females with 38-40-mm glenospheres (HR 1.38, 95% CI 1.14, 1.68, P <.001; and HR 1.41, 95% CI 1.06, 1.88, P =.019, respectively). For patients aged 65-74 years, glenospheres >40 mm had a significantly lower revision rate than both the <38-mm glenospheres (entire period: HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.45, 0.76, P <.001) and 38-40-mm glenospheres (entire period: HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.54, 0.94, P =.017). For patients aged ≥75 years (n = 14,622), <38-mm glenospheres had a significantly higher rate of revision compared with 38-40-mm glenospheres after 3 months (HR 1.43, 95% CI 1.09, 1.86, P =.009). Analysis comparing glenosphere sizes within each of the 3 most commonly implanted prostheses found that the Delta Xtend with 38-40-mm glenospheres had higher revision rates compared with >40-mm glenospheres (HR 1.49, 95% CI 1.14, 1.92, P =.003). The SMR L1 (Lima) 38-40-mm glenospheres had a lower rate of revision compared with the <38-mm (HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.37, 0.67, P <.001) and >40-mm glenospheres (HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.43, 0.85, P =.004). Glenospheres <38 mm can be expected to increase revision rates in primary RTSAs. The optimum size of glenospheres is gender, age, and prosthesis specific, with revision rates lower for females with 38-40-mm glenospheres and lower for males with >40-mm glenospheres. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Ultracongruent (UC) tibial inserts can increase knee replacement stability, but how survivorship compares to cruciate retaining (CR) or posterior stabilized (PS) inserts is unclear.Methods: Data from a large joint registry were used to calculate the cumulative percent revision of a single popular knee design used with different inserts. There were 67,523 procedures, of which 12,434 were UC, 21,635 CR, and 33,454 PS. Revision rates and reasons for revision were analyzed.Results: The cumulative percent revision at 18 years was 8.3% for UC, 9.2% for CR, and 8.9% for PS. There was no difference when UC was compared to CR, but PS had a higher risk of revision. Revision reasons were similar.Conclusion: Compared to the CR, an UC insert did not increase revision rates and was actually lower than a PS insert. An UC insert does not compromise long-term total knee arthroplasty survivorship in the Genesis II prosthesis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Highly porous-coated titanium acetabular components have a high coefficient of friction and ultraporous surfaces to enhance bone ingrowth and osseointegration in total hip arthroplasty (THA). There have been concerns with the development of early radiolucent lines and aseptic loosening of highly porous acetabular components. It is unclear whether these concerns relate to a specific implant or the entire class. The aim of this study is to compare the revision rates for aseptic loosening of highly porous acetabular combinations in primary THA using data from a large joint replacement registry.Methods: Data were retrieved from the Australian Orthopedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry for the study period September 1999 to December 2019. All primary THA procedures recorded and performed for osteoarthritis using the most common combinations for each highly porous acetabular component with highly cross-linked polyethylene and a 32-mm or 36-mm femoral head were included. The primary outcome measure was revision for aseptic loosening of the acetabular component. Results were adjusted for patient age and gender.Results: There were 20,993 primary THA procedures performed for osteoarthritis using a highly porous acetabular component across 6 combinations. Relative to the POLARSTEM/R3 (StikTite), the Exeter V40/Tritanium had a significantly higher risk of revision for aseptic loosening of the acetabular component (hazard ratio 0.21, 95% confidence interval 0.06-0.74, P = .014). There was no difference between any other highly porous acetabular component combination and no late revisions for aseptic loosening.Conclusion: Highly porous-coated titanium acetabular components have low rates of aseptic loosening with long-term follow-up. A difference between components may exist.Level Of Evidence: Level III. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Dual mobility (DM) and large femoral head bearings (≥36 mm) both decrease the risk of dislocation in total hip arthroplasty (THA). There is limited comparable data in primary THA. This study compared the revision rates for dislocation and aseptic causes between DM and large femoral heads and subanalyzed by acetabular component size.Methods: Data from the Australian Orthopedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry were analyzed for patients undergoing primary THA for osteoarthritis from January 2008 (the year of first recorded DM use) to December 2019. All DM and large femoral head bearings were identified. The primary outcome measure was the cumulative percent revision (CPR) for dislocation and for all aseptic causes. The results were adjusted by age, sex, and femoral fixation. A subanalysis was performed stratifying acetabular component diameter <58 m and ≥58 mm.Results: There were 4942 DM and 101,221 large femoral head bearings recorded. There was no difference in the CPR for dislocation (HR = 0.69 (95% CI 0.42, 1.13), P = .138) or aseptic causes (HR = 0.91 (95% CI 0.70, 1.18), P = .457). When stratified by acetabular component size, DM reduced the CPR for dislocation in acetabular component diameter <58 mm (HR = 0.55 (95% CI 0.30, 1.00), P = .049). There was no difference for diameter ≥58 mm. There was no difference in aseptic revision when stratified by acetabular component diameter.Conclusion: There is no difference in revision rates for dislocation or aseptic causes between DM and large femoral heads in primary THA. When stratified by acetabular component size, DM reduces dislocation for acetabular component diameter <58 mm.Level Of Evidence: Level III. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Hip hemiarthroplasty is the most common arthroplasty option for fractured neck of femur (FNOF). Revision to total hip arthroplasty (THA) is occasionally required. This study aimed to assess the outcome of hemiarthroplasty revised to THA and to assess the impact of femoral head size, dual mobility (DM), and constrained liners.Methods: All aseptic 1st revisions reported to the Australian Joint Replacement Registry after hemiarthroplasty performed for FNOF when a THA was used as the revision procedure were included from September 1999 to December 2019. The primary outcome measure was the cumulative percent revision for all-causes and dislocation. The impact of prosthesis factors on revision THA was assessed: standard head THA (≤32 mm), large head THA (≥36 mm), DM, and constrained liners. Outcomes were compared using Kaplan Meyer and competing risk.Results: There were 96,861 hemiarthroplasties performed, with 985 revised to THA. The most common reasons for 1st revision were loosening (49.3%), fracture (17.7%), and dislocation (11.0%). Of the hemiarthroplasty procedures revised to THA, 76 had a 2nd revision. The most common reasons for 2nd revision were fracture (27.6%), dislocation (26.3%), loosening (23.7%), and infection (18.4%). Femoral head size, DM, or constrained liner use did not alter the incidence of all-cause 2nd revision. This did not change when solely looking at patients still alive. A 2nd revision was more likely in patients aged <75 years.Conclusion: The outcome of hemiarthroplasty performed for FNOF revised to THA is influenced by patient age, not by the articulation used. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Ceramic-on-ceramic bearing breakage is a rare but significant complication of total hip arthroplasty. This study aimed to identify risk factors for breakage and to determine the outcome of different revision options.Methods: All ceramic-on-ceramic primary total hip arthroplasty procedures reported to the Australian Joint Replacement Registry from September 1999 to December 2019 were included. Procedures were subdivided into alumina or mixed ceramic (alumina/zirconia). All breakages were identified. The association between ceramic type and head size was assessed. Subsequent revision rates were compared and cause of revision assessed.Results: There were 23,534 alumina and 71,144 mixed ceramic procedures. Breakage was the reason for 1st revision in 84 alumina (5.27% of all revisions and 0.36% of procedures) and 56 mixed ceramic procedures (2.46% of all revisions; 0.08% of procedures). Alumina had a higher breakage rate than mixed ceramic (HR 2.50 (95% CI 1.75, 3.59), P < .001), and breakage was higher for 36-38mm head sizes using alumina (HR 2.84 (1.52, 5.31), P = .001). 17.8% of 2nd revisions occur by 3 years, due to dislocation, infection, metal-related pathology, and loosening. A neck adapter sleeve did not reduce 2nd revisions. Numbers were too low to compare revision bearing surface options.Conclusion: Ceramic breakage has reduced with mixed ceramics but has a 0.79/1000 incidence at 15-year follow-up. It is unclear what the risk factors are for modern ceramics with increasing head size a risk for alumina only. Risk of 2nd revision is high and occurs early. The optimal revision option is unknown. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The incidence of driving a train through a stop signal continues to have implications for safety on railways. Industry rulebooks advise how to manage these events, but there has been very little investigation of causality from the systems-view. The increasing trend for maximising rail capacities could be exacerbating the issue and warrants investigation from this perspective to determine the factors impinging on safety decisions in train driving. A participative research approach incorporating cab rides, focus groups, and a generative scenario simulation exercise was used to investigate how train movements and safety risk was managed, and the implications of this on the rail organisation. Twenty-eight train drivers participated from eight passenger rail organisations across Australia and New Zealand. Inductive thematic analysis of the data revealed factors associated with (1) changes to signal meaning, (2) the nature of the driver-signal relationship, and (3) the confounding practice of asking a driver if they were “fit to continue” driving after going through a stop signal. The findings reflected a strong pattern of a normalisation of deviance. The results are discussed in terms of the mechanisms underlying the observed phenomenon and a model outlining prospective solutions for future research is presented to contribute to the development of novel ideas for further thinking and research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]