Search

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: During the last 5 years, there has been an increase in the use of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) to treat knee osteoarthritis in Australia, and these account for almost 6% of annual knee replacement procedures. However, there is debate as to whether a fixed bearing or a mobile bearing design is best for decreasing revision for loosening and disease progression as well as improving survivorship. Small sample sizes and possible confounding in the studies on the topic may have masked differences between fixed and mobile bearing designs.Questions/purposes: Using data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR), we selected the four contemporary designs of medial compartment UKA: mobile bearing, fixed modular, all-polyethylene, and fixed molded metal-backed used for the treatment of osteoarthritis to ask: (1) How do the different designs of unicompartmental knees compare with survivorship as measured by cumulative percentage revision (CPR)? (2) Is there a difference in the revision rate between designs as a function of patient sex or age? (3) Do the reasons for revision differ, and what types of revision procedures are performed when these UKA are revised?Methods: The AOANJRR longitudinally maintains data on all primary and revision joint arthroplasties, with nearly 100% capture. The study population included all UKA procedures undertaken for osteoarthritis between September 1999 and December 2018. Of 56,628 unicompartmental knees recorded during the study period, 50,380 medial UKA procedures undertaken for osteoarthritis were included in the analysis after exclusion of procedures with unknown bearing types (31 of 56,628), lateral or patellofemoral compartment UKA procedures (5657 of 56,628), and those performed for a primary diagnosis other than osteoarthritis (560 of 56,628). There were 50,380 UKA procedures available for analysis. The study group consisted of 40% (20,208 of 50,380) mobile bearing UKA, 35% (17,822 of 50,380) fixed modular UKA, 23% (11,461 of 50,380) all-polyethylene UKA, and 2% (889 of 50,380) fixed molded metal-backed UKA. There were similar sex proportions and age distributions for each bearing group. The overall mean age of patients was 65 ± 9.4 years, and 55% (27,496 of 50,380) of patients were males. The outcome measure was the CPR, which was defined using Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship to describe the time to the first revision. Hazard ratios from Cox proportional hazards models, adjusted for sex and age, were performed to compare the revision rates among groups. The cohort was stratified into age groups of younger than 65 years and 65 years and older to compare revision rates as a function of age. Differences among bearing groups for the major causes and modes of revision were assessed using hazard ratios.Results: At 15 years, fixed modular UKA had a CPR of 16% (95% CI 15% to 17%). In comparison, the CPR was 23% (95% CI 22% to 24%) for mobile bearing UKA, 26% (95% CI 24% to 27%) for all-polyethylene UKA, and 20% (95% CI 16% to 24%) for fixed molded metal-backed UKA. The lower revision rate for fixed modular UKA was seen through the entire period compared with mobile bearing UKA (hazard ratio 1.5 [95% CI 1.4 to 1.6]; p < 0.001) and fixed molded metal-backed UKA (HR 1.3 [95% CI 1.1 to 1.6]; p = 0.003), but it varied with time compared with all-polyethylene UKA. The findings were consistent when stratified by sex or age. Although all-polyethylene UKA had the highest revision rate overall and for patients younger than 65 years, for patients aged 65 years and older, there was no difference between all-polyethylene and mobile bearing UKA. When compared with fixed modular UKA, a higher revision risk for loosening was shown in both mobile bearing UKA (HR 1.7 [95% CI 1.5 to 1.9]; p < 0.001) and all-polyethylene UKA (HR 2.4 [95% CI 2.1 to 2.7]; p < 0.001). The revision risk for disease progression was higher for all-polyethylene UKA at all time points (HR 1.4 [95% CI 1.3 to 1.6]; p < 0.001) and for mobile bearing UKA after 8 years when each were compared with fixed modular UKA (8 to 12 years: HR 1.4 [95% CI 1.2 to 1.7]; p < 0.001; 12 or more years: HR 1.9 [95% CI 1.5 to 2.3]; p < 0.001). The risk of revision to TKA was higher for mobile bearing UKA compared with fixed modular UKA (HR 1.4 [95% CI 1.3 to 1.5]; p < 0.001).Conclusion: If UKA is to be considered for the treatment of isolated medial compartment osteoarthritis, the fixed modular UKA bearing has the best survivorship of the current UKA designs.Level Of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]