Search

In an observational study, to investigate the treatment effect, one common strategy is to match the control subjects to the treated subjects. The outcomes between the two groups are then compared after the TC (treatment-control) match. However, when the outcome is rare, detection of an outcome difference can be challenging. An alternative approach is to compare the treatment or exposure discrepancy after matching subjects with the outcome (cases) to subjects without the outcome (referents). Throughout the article, we follow the tradition to call this the matched "case-control" approach instead of the matched "case-referent" approach. We reserve "control" to mean not taking the treatment, and the abbreviation TC and CC (case-control) when possible confusion may arise. We derive conditions when the matched CC approach has more power for testing the treatment effect and examine its empirical performance in simulations and in our data example. We also show that the CC approach gives better match quality in our study of the effect of long vs. short stay in the hospital after joint surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and purpose — Studies describing time-related change in reasons for knee replacement revision have been limited to single regions or institutions, commonly analyze only 1st revisions, and may not reflect true caseloads or findings from other areas. We used revision procedure data from 3 arthroplasty registries to determine trends and differences in knee replacement revision diagnoses. Patients and methods — We obtained aggregated data for 78,151 revision knee replacement procedures recorded by the Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register (SKAR), the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR), and the Kaiser Permanente Joint Replacement Registry (KPJRR) for the period 2003–2017. Equivalent diagnosis groups were created. We calculated the annual proportions of the most common reasons for revision. Results — Infection, loosening, and instability were among the 5 most common reasons for revision but magnitude and ranking varied between registries. Over time there were increases in proportions of revisions for infection and decreases in revisions for wear. There were inconsistent proportions and trends for the other reasons for revision. The incidence of revision for infection showed a uniform increase. Interpretation — Despite some differences in terminology, comparison of registry-recorded revision diagnoses is possible, but defining a single reason for revision is not always clear-cut. There were common increases in revision for infection and decreases in revision for wear, but variable changes in other categories. This may reflect regional practice differences and therefore generalizability of studies regarding reasons for revision is unwise. [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]

Dual mobility acetabular cups (DMC) were designed to increase the effective femoral head size and improve stability with the goal of reducing revision risk at the potential cost of polyethylene thickness. We sought to evaluate revision risk following primary elective total hip arthroplasty with DMC compared to highly cross-linked polyethylene (XLPE). A cohort study was conducted using data from a Kaiser Permanente's total joint arthroplasty registry. Patients ≥18 years who underwent primary elective total hip arthroplasty using DMC, unipolar Metal-on-XLPE (MoXLPE), or unipolar Ceramic-on-XLPE (CoXLPE) were identified (2010 to 2021). The final sample comprised 2,219 DMC, 48,251 MoXLPE, and 57,058 CoXLPE. Multiple Cox proportional hazard regressions were used to evaluate aseptic revision and any dislocation regardless of revision within 6 years follow-up. In adjusted analyses, no differences in aseptic revision risk were observed for MoXLPE (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.04, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.72 to 1.51) or CoXLPE (HR = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.69 to 1.40) compared to DMC. No differences in dislocation risk were observed for MoXLPE (HR = 1.42, 95% CI = 0.93 to 2.15) or CoXLPE (HR = 1.25, 95% CI = 0.84 to 1.87) compared to DMC. In a US-based cohort, 6-year aseptic revision risk of DMC was similar to metal or ceramic femoral head unipolar constructs. Furthermore, no difference in dislocation risk was observed. Continued longer-term follow-up may reveal if there is a reduced risk of dislocation that comes at the cost of increased late revision. Level III. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The impact of prior lumbar spinal fusion on the change in physical activity level following total hip arthroplasty (THA) has not been thoroughly examined. Therefore, we sought to compare the change in physical activity level following THA for patients with and without a history of lumbar spine fusion.Methods: Patients who underwent primary elective THA were identified using an integrated healthcare system's Total Joint Replacement Registry (2010-2013). Prior lumbar spine fusion was identified using the healthcare system's Spine Registry. Physical activity was self-reported by patients and measured in min/wk. Generalized linear models were used to evaluate the association between prior spine fusion and the change in physical activity from 1 year pre-THA to 1-2 years post-THA.Results: Of 11,416 THAs, 90 (0.8%) had a history of lumbar spinal fusion. Patients with a prior lumbar fusion had a median physical activity level of 28 min/wk prior to THA compared to 45 min/wk in the patients with no history of lumbar spinal fusion. One year after THA, patients with a history of lumbar spinal fusion reported a median of 120 min/wk of physical activity compared to 150 min/wk for patients without a history of lumbar spinal fusion. The difference in physical activity level change between groups was not statistically significant (estimate = -23.1, 95% confidence interval -62.1 to 15.9, P = .246).Conclusion: Patients with prior lumbar fusion were found to have lower self-reported physical activity levels than patients without spine fusion both before and after THA surgery. However, both groups saw the same degree of improvement in physical activity level following THA. These findings may help in counseling patients who have had a prior lumbar spine fusion and in setting appropriate expectations prior to THA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]