Search

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: Major revision is associated with less satisfactory outcomes, substantial complications, and added cost. Data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) were analyzed to identify factors associated with major aseptic revision (MAR) of primary total knee replacement (TKR).Methods: The cumulative percent major aseptic revision rate following all primary TKRs performed in Australia from September 1, 1999, to December 31, 2015, was assessed. Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship were utilized to describe the time to first revision. Hazard ratios (HRs) from Cox proportional hazard models, adjusted for age and sex, were utilized to compare revision rates.Results: There were 5,973 MARs recorded from the total cohort of 478,081 primary TKRs. The cumulative percent MAR at 15 years was 3.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.8% to 3.2%). Fixed bearings had a significantly lower rate of MAR at 15 years: 2.7% (95% CI, 2.4% to 2.9%) compared with 4.1% (95% CI, 3.8% to 4.5%) for mobile bearings (HR, 1.77 [95% CI, 1.68 to 1.86]; p < 0.001). Age had a significant effect on MAR rates, with a cumulative percent revision at 15 years for patients <55 years old of 7.8% (95% CI, 6.5% to 9.2%) compared with 1.0% for those ≥75 years old (95% CI, 0.8% to 1.1%; p < 0.001). Minimally stabilized TKR had a lower rate of MAR compared with posterior-stabilized TKR after 2 years (HR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.77 to 0.90]; p < 0.001). Cementless fixation had a higher rate of revision than cemented or hybrid fixation. There was a higher rate of MAR with non-navigated compared with computer navigated TKR (HR, 1.32 [95% CI, 1.21 to 1.44], p < 0.001). The tibial component was revised more commonly than the femoral component.Conclusions: Younger age, posterior stabilization, cementless fixation, a mobile bearing, and non-navigation were risk factors for higher rates of MAR following TKR.Level Of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and purpose — Although common in medical research, meta-analysis has not been widely adopted in registry collaborations. A meta-analytic approach in which each registry conducts a standardized analysis on its own data followed by a meta-analysis to calculate a weighted average of the estimates allows collaboration without sharing patient-level data. The value of meta-analysis as an alternative to individual patient data analysis is illustrated in this study by comparing the risk of revision of porous tantalum cups versus other uncemented cups in primary total hip arthroplasties from Sweden, Australia, and a US registry (2003-2015). Patients and methods — For both individual patient data analysis and meta-analysis approaches a Cox proportional hazard model was fit for time to revision, comparing porous tantalum (n = 23,201) with other uncemented cups (n = 128,321). Covariates included age, sex, diagnosis, head size, and stem fixation. In the meta-analysis approach, treatment effect size (i.e., Cox model hazard ratio) was calculated within each registry and a weighted average for the individual registries’ estimates was calculated. Results — Patient-level data analysis and meta-analytic approaches yielded the same results with the porous tantalum cups having a higher risk of revision than other uncemented cups (HR (95% CI) 1.6 (1.4-1.7) and HR (95% CI) 1.5 (1.4-1.7), respectively). Adding the US cohort to the meta-analysis led to greater generalizability, increased precision of the treatment effect, and similar findings (HR (95% CI) 1.6 (1.4-1.7)) with increased risk of porous tantalum cups. Interpretation — The meta-analytic technique is a viable option to address privacy, security, and data ownership concerns allowing more expansive registry collaboration, greater generalizability, and increased precision of treatment effects. [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 and purpose -- Given similar functional outcomes with mobile and fixed bearings, a difference in survivorship may favor either. This study investigated the risk of aseptic loosening for the most used subtypes of mobile-bearing rotating-platform knees, in Norway and Australia. Patients and methods -- Primary TKRs reported to the Norwegian and Australian joint registries, between 2003 and 2014, were analyzed with aseptic loosening as primary end-point and all revisions as secondary end-point. We hypothesized that no difference would be found in the rate of revision between rotating-platform and the most used fixed-bearing TKRs, or between keeled and non-keeled tibia. Kaplan-Meier estimates and curves, and Cox regression relative risk estimates adjusted for age, sex, and diagnosis were used for comparison. Results -- The rotating-platform TKRs had an increased risk of revision for aseptic loosening compared with the most used fixed-bearing knees, in Norway (RR = 6, 95% CI 4-8) and Australia (RR = 2.1, 95% CI 1.8-2.5). The risk of aseptic loosening as a reason for revision was highest in Norway compared with Australia (RR = 1.7, 95% CI 1.4-2.0). The keeled tibial component had the same risk of aseptic loosening as the non-keeled tibia (Australia). Fixation method and subtypes of the tibial components had no impact on the risk of aseptic loosening in these mobile-bearing knees. Interpretation -- The rotating-platform TKRs in this study appeared to have a higher risk of revision for aseptic loosening than the most used fixed-bearing TKRs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and purpose —While highly crosslinked polyethylene has shown reduced in vivo wear and lower rates of revision for total hip arthroplasty, there have been few long-term studies on its use in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). We compared the rate of revision of non-crosslinked polyethylene to that of crosslinked polyethylene in patients who underwent TKA for osteoarthritis. Patients and methods —We examined data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry on 302,214 primary TKA procedures with non-crosslinked polyethylene and 83,890 procedures with crosslinked polyethylene, all of which were performed for osteoarthritis. The survivorship of the different polyethylenes was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and was compared using proportional hazard models. Results —The 10-year cumulative revision rate for non-crosslinked polyethylene was 5.8% (95% CI: 5.7–6.0) and for crosslinked polyethylene it was 3.5% (95% CI: 3.2–3.8) (> 6.5-year HR = 2.2 (1.5–3.1); p < 0.001). There was no effect of surgical volume or method of prosthesis fixation on outcome. There were 4 different TKA designs that had a minimum of 2,500 procedures in at least 1 of the polyethylene groups and a follow-up of ≥ 5 years. 2 of these, the NexGen and the Natural Knee II, had a lower rate of revision for crosslinked polyethylene. The Scorpio NRG/Series 7000 and the Triathlon Knee did not show a lower rate of revision for crosslinked polyethylene. Interpretation —There is a lower rate of revision for crosslinked polyethylene in TKA, and this appears to be prosthesis-specific and when it occurs is most evident in patients < 65 years of age. The difference in revision rates was mainly due to revisions because of lysis and loosening. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Pain is the main impetus for osteoarthritis (OA) patients to seek healthcare including joint replacement. The pain experience in OA is heterogeneous and affected by factors across multiple domains—peripheral, psychological, and neurological. This indicates the existence of homogenous subgroups/phenotypes within OA patients with pain. We recently identified three pain phenotypes using a wide spectrum of pain-related factors, including structural damage on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), emotional problems, number of painful sites, sex, body mass index, education level and comorbidities (i.e., Class 1: high prevalence of emotional problems and low prevalence of structural damage (25%); Class 2: low prevalence of emotional problems and high prevalence of structural damage (20%); Class 3: low prevalence of emotional problems and low prevalence of structural damage (55%)). This study was to examine whether the total knee replacement (TKR) risk over 12 years was different among these three pain phenotypes. Data on 963 participants (mean age 62.8 ± 7.4 years) from a population-based cohort study were utilised. Data on socio-demographic, psychological and comorbidities were collected. MRI of the right knee structural pathology was performed. TKR history was ascertained by linking to the Australian Orthopedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. Latent class analysis and the Cox proportional hazards model were applied for the analysis. During the follow-up period, 41 right and 44 left TKRs in 67 participants were identified. In multivariable analyses, participants in Class 1 and 2 had a higher risk of having a TKR (Class 1 vs. Class 3, HR (hazard ratio) 4.81, 95%CI (confidence interval) 2.33–9.93; Class 2 vs. Class 3, HR 9.23, 95%CI 4.66–18.30). These associations were stronger in the imaged right knee but were also significant in the left knee. Participants within distinct pain phenotypes have different risks of TKR, suggesting that the identified phenotypes reflect distinct clinical subgroups with different prognoses. The risk for TKR was higher in Class 1 than that in Class 3, suggesting that pain/emotional status is a stronger driver for TKR than structural damage, and that selecting patients for TKR needs to be optimized in clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]