Search

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]

Introduction: Breakage of the femoral stem component of a total hip replacement is now uncommon but continues to be seen with certain stem designs and in certain patient groups. Data previously published on this topic has been limited, either gathered from a single surgeon or centre, or included only a single stem design. Methods: We reviewed the data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR), identified and analysed 143 stem breakages over a period of 16 years, covering 44 different stem designs. Results: Our data confirms previously published findings that risk factors for stem breakage include patient age at implantation of under 70, male gender, as well as the use of exchangeable necks. We found no association with initial diagnosis, or type of acetabular component implanted. We did however also find, excluding exchangeable neck designs, that after 4.5 years a cemented stem had a significantly higher risk of breakage then a cementless stem. Discussion: To our knowledge this is the 1st paper to suggest cemented fixation as a specific risk factor for stem breakage. The analysis of rare complications such as stem breakage is only possible through large data collection systems such as the AOANJRR. Whilst there have been recent advances in materials and manufacturing techniques, we recommend that surgeons are aware of all the specific risks when considering implant choices for individual patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and purpose The appropriate fixation method for hemiarthroplasty of the hip as it relates to implant survivorship and patient mortality is a matter of ongoing debate. We examined the influence of fixation method on revision rate and mortality. Methods We analyzed approximately 25,000 hemiarthroplasty cases from the AOA National Joint Replacement Registry. Deaths at 1 day, 1 week, 1 month, and 1 year were compared for all patients and among subgroups based on implant type. Results Patients treated with cemented monoblock hemiarthroplasty had a 1.7-times higher day-1 mortality compared to uncemented monoblock components (p < 0.001). This finding was reversed by 1 week, 1 month, and 1 year after surgery (p < 0.001). Modular hemiarthroplasties did not reveal a difference in mortality between fixation methods at any time point. Interpretation This study shows lower (or similar) overall mortality with cemented hemiarthroplasty of the hip. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]