Search

Background: When analyzing the outcomes of joint arthroplasty, an important factor to consider is patient comorbidities. The presence of multiple comorbidities has been associated with longer hospital stays, more postoperative complications, and increased mortality. The American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status classification system score is a measure of a patient's overall health and has been shown to be associated with complications and mortality after joint arthroplasty. The Rx-Risk score is another measure for determining the number of different health conditions for which an individual is treated, with a possible score ranging from 0 to 47.Questions/purposes: For patients undergoing THA or TKA, we asked: (1) Which metric, the Rx-Risk score or the ASA score, correlates more closely with 30- and 90-day mortality after TKA or THA? (2) Is the Rx-Risk score correlated with the ASA score?Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) database linked to two other national databases, the National Death Index (NDI) database and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS), a dispensing database. Linkage to the NDI provided outcome information on patient death, including the fact of and date of death. Linkage to the PBS was performed to obtain records of all medicines dispensed to patients undergoing a joint replacement procedure. Patients were included if they had undergone either a THA (119,076 patients, 131,336 procedures) or TKA (182,445 patients, 215,712 procedures) with a primary diagnosis of osteoarthritis, performed between 2013 and 2017. We excluded patients with missing ASA information (THA: 3% [3055 of 119,076]; TKA: 2% [4095 of 182,445]). This left 127,761 primary THA procedures performed in 116,021 patients (53% [68,037 of 127,761] were women, mean age 68 ± 11 years) and 210,501 TKA procedures performed in 178,350 patients (56% [117,337 of 210,501] were women, mean age 68 ± 9 years) included in this study. Logistic regression models were used to determine the concordance of the ASA and Rx-Risk scores and 30-day and 90-day postoperative mortality. The Spearman correlation coefficient (r) was used to estimate the correlation between the ASA score and Rx-Risk score. All analyses were performed separately for THAs and TKAs.Results: We found both the ASA and Rx-Risk scores had high concordance with 30-day mortality after THA (ASA: c-statistic 0.83 [95% CI 0.79 to 0.86]; Rx-Risk: c-statistic 0.82 [95% CI 0.79 to 0.86]) and TKA (ASA: c-statistic 0.73 [95% CI 0.69 to 0.78]; Rx-Risk: c-statistic 0.74 [95% CI 0.70 to 0.79]). Although both scores were strongly associated with death, their correlation was moderate for patients undergoing THA (r = 0.45) and weak for TKA (r = 0.38). However, the median Rx-Risk score did increase with increasing ASA score. For example, for THAs, the median Rx-Risk score was 1, 3, 5, and 7 for ASA scores 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. For TKAs, the median Rx-Risk score was 2, 4, 5, and 7 for ASA scores 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively.Conclusion: The ASA physical status and RxRisk were associated with 30-day and 90-day mortality; however, the scores were only weakly to moderately correlated with each other. This suggests that although both scores capture a similar level of patient illness, each score may be capturing different aspects of health. The Rx-Risk may be used as a complementary measure to the ASA score.Level Of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is increasing interest in the development of statistical models that can be used to estimate risk of adverse patient outcomes after joint arthroplasty. Competing risk approaches have been recommended to estimate risk of longer-term revision, which is often likely to be precluded by the competing risk of death. However, a common approach is to ignore the competing risk by treating death as a censoring event and using standard survival models such as Cox regression. It is well-known that this approach can overestimate the event risk for population-level estimates, but the impact on the estimation of a patient's individualized risk after joint arthroplasty has not been explored.Questions/purposes: We performed this study to (1) determine whether using a competing risk or noncompeting risk method affects the accuracy of predictive models for joint arthroplasty revision and (2) determine the magnitude of difference that using a competing risks versus noncompeting risks approach will make to predicted risks for individual patients.Methods: The predictive performance of a standard Cox model, with competing risks treated as censoring events, was compared with the performance of two competing risks approaches, the cause-specific Cox model and Fine-Gray model. Models were trained and tested using data pertaining to 531,304 TKAs and 274,618 THAs recorded in the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry between January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2017. The registry is a large database with near-complete capture and follow-up of all hip and knee joint arthroplasty in Australia from 2003 onwards, making it an ideal setting for this study. The performance of the three modeling approaches was compared in two different prediction settings: prediction of the 10-year risk of all-cause revision after TKA and prediction of revision for periprosthetic fracture after THA. The calibration and discrimination of each approach were compared using the concordance index, integrated Brier scores, and calibration plots. Calibration of 10-year risk estimates was further assessed within subgroups of age by comparing the observed and predicted proportion of events. Estimated 10-year risks from each model were also compared in three hypothetical patients with different risk profiles to determine whether differences in population-level performance metrics would translate into a meaningful difference for individual patient predictions.Results: The standard Cox and two competing risks models showed near-identical ability to distinguish between high-risk and low-risk patients (c-index 0.64 [95% CI, 0.64 to 0.64] for all three modeling approaches for TKAs and 0.66 [95% CI 0.66 to 0.66] for THA). All models performed similarly in patients younger than 75 years, but for patients aged 75 years and older, the standard Cox model overestimated the risk of revision more than the cause-specific Cox and Fine-Gray model did. These results were echoed when predictions were made for hypothetical individual patients. For patients with a low competing risk of mortality, the 10-year predicted risks from the standard Cox, cause-specific Cox, and Fine-Gray models were similar for TKAs and THAs. However, a larger difference was observed for hypothetical 89-year-old patients with increased mortality risk. In TKAs, the revision risk for an 89-year-old patient was so low that this difference was negligible (0.83% from the cause-specific Cox model versus 1.1% from the standard Cox model). However, for THAs, where older age is a risk factor for both death and revision for periprosthetic fracture, a larger difference was observed in the 10-year predicted risks for a hypothetical 89-year-old patient (3.4% from the cause-specific Cox model versus 5.2% from the standard Cox model).Conclusion: When developing models to predict longer-term revision of joint arthroplasty, failing to use a competing risks modeling approach will result in overestimating the revision risk for patients with a high risk of mortality during the surveillance period. However, even in an extreme instance, where both the frequency of the event of interest and the competing risk of death are high, the largest absolute difference in predicted 10-year risk for an individual patient was just 1.8%, which may not be of consequence to an individual. Despite these findings, when developing or using risk prediction models, researchers and clinicians should be aware of how competing risks were handled in the modeling process, particularly if the model is intended for use populations where the mortality risk is high.Level Of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) prosthesis is the most commonly used metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty device. The current manufacturer-recommended target demographic for the BHR is male patients, younger than 65 years requiring a femoral head size of ≥ 50 mm. Female patients, older patients, and individuals with smaller femoral-head diameter (≤ 50 mm) are known to have higher revision rates. Prior studies suggest that the survivorship of the BHR when used in the target demographic is comparable with that of primary conventional THA, but comparing survivorship of the most durable hip resurfacing arthroplasty device to the survivorship of all conventional THA prostheses is not ideal because the THA group comprises a large number of different types of prostheses that have considerable variation in prosthesis survival. A more informative comparison would be with the THA implants with the best survivorship, as this might help address the question of whether survivorship in the BHR target population can be improved by using a well-performing conventional THA. Questions/purposes We compared the difference in cumulative percent revision, reasons for revision and types of revision for procedures reported to the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) using the BHR prosthesis (femoral-head size > 50 mm) and three conventional THA prostheses identified as having the lowest 10-year cumulative percent revision in the currently recommended BHR target population to ask: (1) Does the BHR have a lower cumulative revision rate than the group of three conventional THA prostheses? (2) Is there a difference in the revision diagnosis between the BHR and the three best conventional THA prostheses? (3) What is the difference in the components used for a revision of a BHR compared with the three best conventional THA prostheses? Methods Data reported to the AOANJRR between September 1, 1999 and December 31, 2018 was used for this analysis. This study period includes almost the entire use of the BHR in Australia. The AOANJRR is a large national joint registry with almost 100% completeness, high accuracy, rigorous validation, and little to no loss to follow-up. The study population included males younger than 65 years that had received one hip replacement procedure for osteoarthritis. All patients with bilateral procedures, no matter the time interval between hips, were excluded. Only BHR prostheses with a femoral-head size ≥ 50 mm and conventional THA prostheses with femoral head sizes ≥ 32 mm and either ceramic-on-ceramic or metal, ceramic, ceramicized metal-on-crosslinked polyethylene (XLPE) bearings were included. These femoral head sizes and bearings were selected because they reflect modern conventional THA practice. There is no difference in the revision rate of these bearings in the AOANJRR. There were 4790 BHR procedures and 2696 conventional THA procedures in the study group. The mean (± SD) age for BHR procedures was 52 ± 7.8 years and 56 ± 7.1 years for conventional THA procedures. All comparative analyses were adjusted for age. Other demographics data including American Society Anesthesiologists (ASA) score and BMI were only included in AOANJRR data collection since 2012 and 2015, respectively, and have not been included in this analysis because of the low use of BHR in Australia since that time. The maximum follow-up was 18.7 years for both groups and mean follow-up of 11.9 years for the BHR and 9.3 years for the conventional THA group. 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. A revision was defined as removal, replacement or addition of any component of a joint replacement. Revisions can be further classified as major revisions (removal of a component articulating with bone—usually the stem and/or the shell) or minor revisions (removal of other components—usually the head and/or the liner). The unadjusted cumulative percent revision after the primary arthroplasty (with 95% confidence intervals) was calculated and compared using Cox proportional hazard models adjusted for age. Results The BHR prosthesis had a statistically higher rate of all-cause revision at 17 years than the selected conventional THA prostheses (HR 2.77 [95% CI 1.78 to 4.32]; p < 0.001). The revision diagnoses differed between the groups, with the BHR demonstrating a higher revision rate for loosening after 2 years than the conventional THA protheses (HR 4.64 [95% CI 1.66 to 12.97]; p = 0.003), as well as a higher fracture rate during the entire period (HR 2.57 [95% CI 1.24 to 5.33]; p = 0.01). There was a lower revision rate for infection for the BHR compared with the THA group in the first 5 years, with no difference between the two groups after this time. All revisions of the BHR were major revisions (such as, removal or exchange of the femoral and/or acetabular components) and this occurred in 4.5% of the primary BHR procedures. Major revision was the most common type of revision for primary THA accounting for 1.7% of all primary THA procedures. Minor revisions (head, inset or both) were undertaken in a further 0.6% of primary THA procedures. Conclusions Given the increasing revision risk of the BHR compared with better-performing conventional THA prostheses in the target population, we recommend that patients be counseled about this risk. We suggest that a THA with proven low revision rates might be the better choice, particularly for patients who are concerned about implant durability. Well-controlled prospective studies that show appreciable clinically important differences in patient-reported outcomes and functional results favoring the BHR over conventional THA prostheses using modern bearings are needed to justify the use of the BHR in view of this revision risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) prosthesis is the most commonly used metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty device. The current manufacturer-recommended target demographic for the BHR is male patients, younger than 65 years requiring a femoral head size of ≥ 50 mm. Female patients, older patients, and individuals with smaller femoral-head diameter (≤ 50 mm) are known to have higher revision rates. Prior studies suggest that the survivorship of the BHR when used in the target demographic is comparable with that of primary conventional THA, but comparing survivorship of the most durable hip resurfacing arthroplasty device to the survivorship of all conventional THA prostheses is not ideal because the THA group comprises a large number of different types of prostheses that have considerable variation in prosthesis survival. A more informative comparison would be with the THA implants with the best survivorship, as this might help address the question of whether survivorship in the BHR target population can be improved by using a well-performing conventional THA.Questions/purposes: We compared the difference in cumulative percent revision, reasons for revision and types of revision for procedures reported to the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) using the BHR prosthesis (femoral-head size > 50 mm) and three conventional THA prostheses identified as having the lowest 10-year cumulative percent revision in the currently recommended BHR target population to ask: (1) Does the BHR have a lower cumulative revision rate than the group of three conventional THA prostheses? (2) Is there a difference in the revision diagnosis between the BHR and the three best conventional THA prostheses? (3) What is the difference in the components used for a revision of a BHR compared with the three best conventional THA prostheses?Methods: Data reported to the AOANJRR between September 1, 1999 and December 31, 2018 was used for this analysis. This study period includes almost the entire use of the BHR in Australia. The AOANJRR is a large national joint registry with almost 100% completeness, high accuracy, rigorous validation, and little to no loss to follow-up. The study population included males younger than 65 years that had received one hip replacement procedure for osteoarthritis. All patients with bilateral procedures, no matter the time interval between hips, were excluded. Only BHR prostheses with a femoral-head size ≥ 50 mm and conventional THA prostheses with femoral head sizes ≥ 32 mm and either ceramic-on-ceramic or metal, ceramic, ceramicized metal-on-crosslinked polyethylene (XLPE) bearings were included. These femoral head sizes and bearings were selected because they reflect modern conventional THA practice. There is no difference in the revision rate of these bearings in the AOANJRR. There were 4790 BHR procedures and 2696 conventional THA procedures in the study group. The mean (± SD) age for BHR procedures was 52 ± 7.8 years and 56 ± 7.1 years for conventional THA procedures. All comparative analyses were adjusted for age. Other demographics data including American Society Anesthesiologists (ASA) score and BMI were only included in AOANJRR data collection since 2012 and 2015, respectively, and have not been included in this analysis because of the low use of BHR in Australia since that time. The maximum follow-up was 18.7 years for both groups and mean follow-up of 11.9 years for the BHR and 9.3 years for the conventional THA group. 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. A revision was defined as removal, replacement or addition of any component of a joint replacement. Revisions can be further classified as major revisions (removal of a component articulating with bone-usually the stem and/or the shell) or minor revisions (removal of other components-usually the head and/or the liner). The unadjusted cumulative percent revision after the primary arthroplasty (with 95% confidence intervals) was calculated and compared using Cox proportional hazard models adjusted for age.Results: The BHR prosthesis had a statistically higher rate of all-cause revision at 17 years than the selected conventional THA prostheses (HR 2.77 [95% CI 1.78 to 4.32]; p < 0.001). The revision diagnoses differed between the groups, with the BHR demonstrating a higher revision rate for loosening after 2 years than the conventional THA protheses (HR 4.64 [95% CI 1.66 to 12.97]; p = 0.003), as well as a higher fracture rate during the entire period (HR 2.57 [95% CI 1.24 to 5.33]; p = 0.01). There was a lower revision rate for infection for the BHR compared with the THA group in the first 5 years, with no difference between the two groups after this time. All revisions of the BHR were major revisions (such as, removal or exchange of the femoral and/or acetabular components) and this occurred in 4.5% of the primary BHR procedures. Major revision was the most common type of revision for primary THA accounting for 1.7% of all primary THA procedures. Minor revisions (head, inset or both) were undertaken in a further 0.6% of primary THA procedures.Conclusions: Given the increasing revision risk of the BHR compared with better-performing conventional THA prostheses in the target population, we recommend that patients be counseled about this risk. We suggest that a THA with proven low revision rates might be the better choice, particularly for patients who are concerned about implant durability. Well-controlled prospective studies that show appreciable clinically important differences in patient-reported outcomes and functional results favoring the BHR over conventional THA prostheses using modern bearings are needed to justify the use of the BHR in view of this revision risk.Level Of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and purpose — Rates of knee replacement (KR) are increasing worldwide. Based on population and practice changes, there are forecasts of a further exponential increase in primary knee replacement through to 2030, and a corresponding increase in revision knee replacement. We used registry data to document changes in KR over the past 15 years, comparing practice changes across Sweden, Australia, and the United States. This may improve accuracy of future predictions. Patients and methods — Aggregated data from the Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register (SKAR), the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR), and the Kaiser Permanente Joint Replacement Registry (KPJRR) were used to compare surgical volume of primary and revision KR from 2003 to 2017. Incidence was calculated using population census statistics from Statistics Sweden and the Australian Bureau of Statistics, as well as the yearly active membership numbers from Kaiser Permanente. Further analysis of KR by age < 65 and ≥ 65 years was carried out. Results — All registries recorded an increase in primary and revision KR, with a greater increase seen in the KPJRR. The rate of increase slowed during the study period. In Sweden and Australia, there was a smaller increase in revision surgery compared with primary procedures. There was consistency in the mean age at surgery, with a steady small decrease in the proportion of women having primary KR. The incidence of KR in the younger age group remained low in all 3 registries, but the proportional increases were greater than those seen in the ≥ 65 years of age group. Interpretation — There has been a generalized deceleration in the rate of increase of primary and revision KR. While there are regional differences in KR incidence, and rates of change, the rate of increase does not seem to be as great as previously predicted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study aims to assess whether older adults with low muscle mass or strength, in the presence of obesity, have an increased risk of knee (TKR) and hip replacement (THR) over 13 years. 1082 community-dwelling older adults (51% women; mean age 62.9 ± 7.5 years) were studied at baseline and multiple time points over 13 years. The incidence of TKR and THR was determined by data linkage to National Joint Replacement Registry. Appendicular lean and fat mass were measured using DXA. Lower-limb muscle strength (LMS) was assessed by dynamometer. Low muscle mass and strength were defined as the lowest sex-specific tertiles for appendicular lean mass (adjusted for height and total body fat mass) and lower-limb strength, respectively. Obesity was defined as the highest sex-specific tertile for total body fat mass. Competing risk regression models were used to estimate the sub-distribution hazard ratio (SHR) for TKR and THR. Over 13 years of follow-up, 6.8% (n = 74/1082) of the participants had a TKR and 4.7% (n = 50/1066) had THR. Participants with the combination of obesity and low muscle strength (SHR   3.36, 95% CI 1.50, 7.53) but low muscle mass (SHR 1.11, 95% CI 0.52, 2.40) had a significantly increased risk of TKR, compared to individuals with neither obesity nor low muscle mass/strength. However, obesity with low muscle strength did not lead to a significantly greater risk of TKR compared to having low muscle strength or obesity alone. There was no evidence for an association between obesity with low muscle mass or strength and THR (all p > 0.05). This finding suggests that combining muscle and fat assessments to predict the future risk of TKR is no better than each condition on its own. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: TKA generally has excellent long-term survivorship. When a new knee system supersedes a previous model, increased survivorship, improved functional performance, or both may be expected, because key areas of design modification are often targeted to address wear, stability, and the patellofemoral articulation. However, not all design changes are beneficial, and to our knowledge, knee arthroplasty has not been systematically evaluated in the context of design changes that occur during the development of new knee arthroplasty systems.Questions/purposes: Using the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) we performed multiple old-to-new comparisons of frequently used contemporary knee implants to ask: (1) does overall prosthesis survivorship free from revision increase when a new knee prosthesis system is introduced to replace a prior prosthesis system? (2) Has survivorship free from revision improved for the revision indications of wear, instability, and patellofemoral articulation issues, where development efforts have been concentrated?Methods: Data from the AOANJRR from September 1999 to December 2017 were used to compare the survivorship of prostheses free from revision at a maximum of 17 years in procedures where a new design model was introduced to replace a prior knee system from the same manufacturer. Only prosthesis systems used in a minimum of 2000 primary TKA procedures for osteoarthritis that had a minimum of 5 years of follow-up were included. Varus-valgus constrained and hinge TKA designs were excluded. Cruciate-retaining, posterior-stabilized, and medial pivot-design knees were considered separately. The new and old prosthesis systems were paired for analysis. Survivorship was calculated with Kaplan Meier estimates and comparisons were performed using the Cox proportional hazards method. Subanalyses according to the three main revision indications were performed, and where possible, analyses were performed based on polyethylene types (highly cross-linked polyethylene and ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene), combined and separated. Revision was defined as a reoperation of a previous knee arthroplasty in which one or more of the components was removed, replaced, or added. There were 323,955 TKA procedures and 11 new prosthesis system designs that were introduced to replace an earlier knee system from the same manufacturer. Of these prosthesis system pairs, six were cruciate-retaining prostheses, four were posterior-stabilized designs, and one was a medial pivot design.Results: Six of the 11 knee system pairs showed improved survivorship with the new design, three were no different, and in two, the newer prosthesis systems had a higher rate of revision than the old one did. When revision for wear was analyzed, five prosthesis systems showed improvement, five were no different, and one had a higher rate of revision than the previous system did. There was no improvement in the rate of revision for instability; seven new prosthesis systems showed no difference from the previous system and four new prosthesis systems had a higher rate of revision than the previous system did. A subanalysis of revision for patellofemoral complications showed improvement in two comparisons, no difference in six, and a higher revision rate in two; one could not be calculated because of an insufficient number of revisions for this reason.Conclusions: It is difficult to predict whether a new system will demonstrate better survival than a previous one, and widespread uptake of a new design before a benefit is shown in robust clinical studies is unwise. Similarly, adoption of a new system for which there is no difference in survivorship from a previous model may be premature because a new device may have associated unknown and unintended consequences. Healthcare policy makers and therapeutic device regulators should similarly be guided by results and seek out peer-reviewed evidence before accepting change to established practice. Surgeons must be aware that implant changes may not translate into better survivorship and must seek compelling evidence of improvement in survival and/or function before changing systems.Level Of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The optimum strategy regarding resurfacing the patella in total knee replacement (TKR) remains debated, with wide national and international variability. To minimize the confounders of a direct comparison of cases with or without resurfacing, we performed an instrumental variable analysis examining revision risk on the basis of surgeon preference for patellar resurfacing in TKR, specifically examining the subsequent patellar revision risk and all-cause revision risk among cases of surgeons preferring to perform resurfacing on a selective basis compared with those whose preference is to routinely resurface or who infrequently perform resurfacing.Methods: Data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry from 1999 to 2016 were obtained to assess the cumulative percent revision, hazard ratio, and revision diagnoses for 3 cohorts, grouped according the surgeons' patellar-resurfacing preferences: infrequently (<10% of the time), selectively (10% to <90% of the time), or routinely (≥90% of the time). To avoid confounding from implant design or surgeon performance, only minimally stabilized TKRs using hybrid or cemented fixation and performed by surgeons performing ≥50 TKR procedures per year were included.Results: A total of 136,116 procedures were included, with patients in all 3 cohorts having similar demographics. The selectively resurfaced cohort had a higher patellar revision risk compared with the routinely resurfaced cohort, with this risk being greatest in the first 4.5 years following the primary procedure, including 306% higher in the first 1.5 years, and remaining 50% higher after 4.5 years. In a subgroup analysis, increased revision risk was observed among males, females, those <65 years of age, and those ≥65 years of age. The infrequently resurfaced cohort had the highest risk of subsequent patellar revision, up to 482% higher, as seen in the first 1.5 years after the primary procedure, compared with the routinely resurfaced cohort. Additionally, the risk of all-cause revision was 20% higher for the selectively resurfaced cohort compared with routinely resurfaced.Conclusions: Surgeons who preferred selective resurfacing of the patella had a higher risk of patellar revision than those who had preference for routine resurfacing of the patella. Overall, a greater preference for resurfacing resulted in a lower risk of patellar revision.Level Of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patellofemoral replacements (PFRs) have a higher rate of revision than unicompartmental knee arthroplasty or TKA. However, there is little information regarding why PFRs are revised, the components used for these revisions, or the outcome of the revision procedure. Some contend that PFR is a bridging procedure that can easily be revised to a TKA with similar results as a primary TKA; however, others dispute this suggestion.Questions/purposes: (1) In the setting of a large national registry, what were the reasons for revision of PFR to TKA and was the level of TKA constraint used in the revision associated with a subsequent risk of rerevision? (2) Is the risk of revision of the TKA used to revise a PFR greater than the risk of revision after a primary TKA and greater than the risk of rerevision after revision TKA?Methods: Data were obtained from the Australian Orthopaedic Association Joint Replacement Registry through December 31, 2016, for TKA revision procedures after PFR. Because revisions for infection may be staged procedures resulting in further planned operations, for the revision analyses, these were excluded. There were 3251 PFRs, 482 of which were revised to TKA during the 17-year study period. The risk of second revision was calculated using Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship for PFRs revised to TKAs, and that risk was compared with the risk of first revision after TKA and also with the risk of a second revision after revision TKA. Hazard ratios (HRs) from Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare second revision rates among the different levels of prosthesis constraint used in the index revision after PFR (specifically, cruciate-retaining versus cruciate-substituting).Results: The main reasons for revising a PFR to TKA were progression of disease (56%), loosening (17%), and pain (12%). With the numbers available for analysis, there was no difference in the risk of a second revision when a PFR was revised to a cruciate-retaining TKA than when it was revised to a cruciate-substituting TKA (HR, 1.24 [0.65-2.36]; p = 0.512). A total of 204 (42%) of the PFR revisions had the patella component revised when the PFR was converted to a TKA. There difference in rates of second revision when the patella component was revised or not revised (HR, 1.01 [0.55-1.85]; p = 0.964). When we eliminated the devices that ceased to be used before 2005 (older devices), we found no change in the overall risk of repeat revision. The risk of a PFR that was revised to a TKA undergoing a second revision was greater than the risk of TKA undergoing a first revision (HR, 2.39 [1.77-3.24]; p < 0.001), but it was less than the risk of a revision TKA undergoing a second revision (HR, 0.60 [0.43-0.81]; p = 0.001).Conclusions: The risk of second revision when a PFR is revised is not altered if cruciate-retaining or posterior-stabilized TKA is used for the revision nor if the patella component is revised or not revised. The risk of repeat revision after revision of a PFR to a TKA was much higher than the risk of revision after a primary TKA, and these findings did not change when we analyzed only devices in use since 2005. When PFR is used for the management of isolated patellofemoral osteoarthritis, patients should be counselled not only about the high revision rate of the primary procedure, but also the revision rate after TKA. Further studies regarding the functional outcomes of these procedures may help clarify the value of PFRs and subsequent revisions.Level Of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Decades of innovations in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) design have led to large number of possible prosthesis combinations in regards fixation, posterior stability, bearing mobility, bearing surface, and patella resurfacing, each of which can alter the revision risk. The accumulative effect when the lowest risk combination in each design category, or "Optimum Prosthesis Combination" (OPC) is utilized remains unknown. The purpose of this analysis was to first, identify the OPC and second, to compare the revision risk of a cohort who received the OPC to a cohort who received an Alternative Prosthesis Combination (APC).Methods: National registry revision risk data for primary TKA for osteoarthritis were obtained from September 1999 to December 2015 for two patient cohorts, those receiving an OPC and those receiving an APC. OPC was defined as TKA with the lowest revision risk option for five primary TKA design categories; fixation, posterior stability, bearing mobility, bearing surface, and patella resurfacing, while APC had one or more higher risk options.Results: Of the 482,373 included TKA, 42,008 (8.7%) were in the OPC cohort, who received a minimally stabilized, fixed bearing TKA with cross-linked polyethylene with patella resurfacing. Both cohorts had similar demographics. At 10 years, the OPC cohort had a Cumulative Percent Revision of 2.4% (95% CI 2.1, 2.8) compared to 5.5% (95% CI 5.4, 5.6) for the APC cohort. For all patients, revision risk of the APC cohort was higher at all times [151% greater at ≥ 3 years (p < 0.001)]. Loosening/lysis was the most common cause of revision in the ACP cohort (1.1%), while it was the second most common cause in the OPC cohort (0.3%). The increased risk was apparent in all age and gender subgroups, with the highest risk increase seen in males ≥ 65 years.Conclusions: Patients receiving the lowest risk prosthesis design combination or Optimum Prosthesis Combination TKA had a 60% lower revision risk, with similar demographics to the Alternative Prosthesis Combination TKA.Level Of Evidence: III. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is ongoing debate concerning the best method of femoral fixation in older patients receiving primary THA. Clinical studies have shown high survivorship for cemented and cementless femoral stems. Arthroplasty registry studies, however, have universally shown that cementless stems are associated with a higher rate of revision in this patient population. It is unclear if the difference in revision rate is a reflection of the range of implants being used for these procedures rather than the mode of fixation.Questions/purposes: (1) Is the risk of revision higher in patients older than 75 years of age who receive one of the three cementless stems with the highest overall survivorship in the registry than in those of that age who received one of the three best-performing cemented stems? If so, is there a difference in risk of early revision versus late revision, defined as revision within 1 month after index surgery? (2) Are there any diagnoses (such as osteoarthritis [OA] or femoral neck hip fracture) in which the three best-performing cementless stems had better survivorship than one of the three best-performing cementless stems? (3) Do these findings change when evaluated by patient sex?Methods: The Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry data were used to identify the best three cemented and the best three cementless femoral stems. The criteria for selection were the lowest 10-year revision rate and use in > 1000 procedures in this age group of patients regardless of primary diagnosis. The outcome measure was time to first revision using Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship. Comparisons were made for THAs done for any reason and then specifically for OA and femoral neck fracture separately.Results: Overall, the cumulative percent revision in the first 3 months postoperatively was lower among those treated with one of the three best-performing cemented stems than those treated with one of the three best-performing cementless stems (hazard ratio [HR] for best three cementless versus best three cemented = 3.47 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.60-7.53], p = 0.001). Early revision was 9.14 times more common in the best three cementless stems than in the best three cemented stems (95% CI, 5.54-15.06, p = 0.001). Likewise, among patients with OA and femoral neck fracture, the cumulative percent revision was consistently higher at 1 month postoperatively among those treated with one of the three best-performing cementless stems than those treated with one of the three best-performing cementless stems (OA: HR for best three cementless versus best three cemented = 8.82 [95% CI, 5.08-15.31], p < 0.001; hip fracture: HR for best 3 cementless versus best three cemented = 27.78 [95% CI, 1.39-143.3], p < 0.001). Overall, the cumulative percent revision was lower in the three best cemented stem group than the three best cementless stem group for both males and females at 1 month postoperatively (male: HR = 0.42 [95% CI, 0.20-0.92], p = 0.030; female: HR = 0.06 [95% CI, 0.03-0.10], p < 0.001) and for females at 3 months postoperatively (HR = 0.15 [95% CI, 0.06-0.33], p < 0.001), after which there was no difference.Conclusions: Cementless femoral stem fixation in patients 75 years or older is associated with a higher early rate of revision, even when only the best-performing prostheses used in patients in this age group were compared. Based on this review of registry data, it would seem important to ensure the proper training of contemporary cementing techniques for the next generation of arthroplasty surgeons so they are able to use this option when required. However, the absence of a difference in the two groups undergoing THA after 3 months suggests that there can be a role for cementless implants in selected cases, depending on the surgeon's expertise and the quality and shape of the proximal femoral bone.Level Of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and purpose — Recent direct comparative reports suggest that hybrid fixation may have a similar or superior outcome to cemented fixation in total knee replacement (TKR); however, a paucity of long-term data exists. To minimize the confounders of a direct comparison, we performed an instrumental variable analysis examining the revision rate of 2 cohorts of patients based on their surgeon’s preference for cemented or hybrid fixation.Methods — Registry data were obtained from 1999 until 2015 for 2 cohorts of patients who received minimally stabilized TKR, defined as those treated by high-volume hybrid fixation preferring surgeons, designated routinely hybrid (RH), and those treated by high-volume cemented fixation preferring surgeons, designated routinely cemented (RC).Results — At 13 years, the cumulative percentage revision of the RC cohort was 4.8% (CI 4.1-5.7) compared with 5.5% (CI 3.5-8.7) for the RH cohort. The revision risk for each cohort was the same for all causes (HR =1.0 (CI (0.84-1.20)), non-infective causes, and for infection. This finding was irrespective of patient age or sex, patella resurfacing, and with non-cross-linked polyethylene (NXLPE). The RH cohort who received cross-linked polyethylene (XLPE) had a lower revision risk than the RC cohort with XLPE (HR =0.57 (0.37-0.88), p = 0.01).Interpretation — The risk of revision for the patients of surgeons who prefer cemented fixation in minimally stabilized TKR is the same as for the patients of surgeons who prefer hybrid fixation, except when used with XLPE, where hybrid fixation has a lower revision risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Orthopaedic Unit of the Repatriation General Hospital (RGH) in Adelaide, South Australia has implemented a quality care management system for patients with arthritis of the hip and knee. The system not only optimises conservative management but ensures that joint replacement surgery is undertaken in an appropriate and timely manner. This new service model addresses identified barriers to service access and provides a comprehensive, coordinated strategy for patient management. Over 4 years the model has reduced waiting times for initial outpatient assessment from 8 to 3 months and surgery from 18 to 8 months, while decreasing length of stay from 6.3 to 5.3 days for hips and 5.8 to 5.3 days for knees. The service reforms have been accompanied by positive feedback from patients and referring general practitioners in relation to the improved coordination of care and enhanced efficiency in service delivery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) 510(k) or regulatory pathway. It evaluates the 510(k) ancestry of a metal-on-metal hip implant, a Class III device. The article also indicates that the 510(k) ancestry of the DePuy AS RXL femoral heads, sleeves and acetabular components reveals serious flaws in the 510(k) procedure for metal-on-metal hip implants, which resulted in clearance of a new device that was never shown to be safe nor effective.

Background: New joint replacement prostheses are being continually introduced into the market. The underlying purpose of the introduction of new devices is to improve patient outcomes. This study was undertaken to determine how many new prostheses were associated with improved patient outcomes. Background: Data were obtained from a comprehensive national database. Outcome analysis was performed on all new hip and knee prostheses introduced into the market between January 1, 2003, and December 31, 2007, and used on at least 100 occasions. The findings were compared with the combined results of the three best performing established hip and knee prostheses with a minimum duration of follow-up of five years. The principal outcome measures were the rate of revision per observed component years and the time to first revision, with use of Kaplan-Meier estimates of implant survivorship. Results: Most prostheses introduced into the market during the study period were used on fewer than 100 occasions. Analysis of those that had been used in a sufficient number of procedures showed that 27% (nine of thirty-three) of the hip replacements and 29% (eight of twenty-eight) of the knee replacements had a significantly higher rate of revision than the established prostheses. None of the newer prostheses had a lower rate of revision than the established prostheses. Conclusion: This study indicates that there was no benefit to the introduction of new prostheses into this national market during the five-year study period. Importantly, 30% of the new prostheses were associated with a significantly worse outcome compared with the prostheses with a minimal duration of follow-up of five years. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is emerging evidence that many metal-on-metal (MoM) bearings, when used with large femoral heads in conventional hip replacement and some resurfacing prostheses, are associated with increased rates of revision arthroplasty. Registries are the main sources of data on MoM prostheses. At the recent International Consortium of Orthopaedic Registries (ICOR) meeting, data were presented from the Australian, England and Wales, and New Zealand registries. All registries reported an increased rate of revision for large femoral head MoM prostheses when prostheses were aggregated compared with the aggregated data of hip prostheses with other bearing surfaces. There was also evidence, however, that the outcome varied, depending on the type of prostheses used, in both large femoral head MoM conventional hip replacement as well as resurfacing hip replacement. The relevance of the recent isolated case reports on systemic metal toxicity was also discussed at the ICOR meeting. Although systemicmetal toxicity appears to be a rare occurrence, there is a need to undertake appropriately designed studies to define the true prevalence of this phenomenon. There may be advantages in nesting these studies within registries. The ICOR meeting highlighted the implications of the MoM experience for the orthopaedic industry, regulators, and surgeons. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: New joint replacement prostheses are being continually introduced into the market. The underlying purpose of the introduction of new devices is to improve patient outcomes. This study was undertaken to determine how many new prostheses were associated with improved patient outcomes.Background: Data were obtained from a comprehensive national database. Outcome analysis was performed on all new hip and knee prostheses introduced into the market between January 1, 2003, and December 31, 2007, and used on at least 100 occasions. The findings were compared with the combined results of the three best performing established hip and knee prostheses with a minimum duration of follow-up of five years. The principal outcome measures were the rate of revision per observed component years and the time to first revision, with use of Kaplan-Meier estimates of implant survivorship.Results: Most prostheses introduced into the market during the study period were used on fewer than 100 occasions. Analysis of those that had been used in a sufficient number of procedures showed that 27% (nine of thirty-three) of the hip replacements and 29% (eight of twenty-eight) of the knee replacements had a significantly higher rate of revision than the established prostheses. None of the newer prostheses had a lower rate of revision than the established prostheses.Conclusion: This study indicates that there was no benefit to the introduction of new prostheses into this national market during the five-year study period. Importantly, 30% of the new prostheses were associated with a significantly worse outcome compared with the prostheses with a minimal duration of follow-up of five years. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is emerging evidence that many metal-on-metal (MoM) bearings, when used with large femoral heads in conventional hip replacement and some resurfacing prostheses, are associated with increased rates of revision arthroplasty. Registries are the main sources of data on MoM prostheses. At the recent International Consortium of Orthopaedic Registries (ICOR) meeting, data were presented from the Australian, England and Wales, and New Zealand registries. All registries reported an increased rate of revision for large femoral head MoM prostheses when prostheses were aggregated compared with the aggregated data of hip prostheses with other bearing surfaces. There was also evidence, however, that the outcome varied, depending on the type of prostheses used, in both large femoral head MoM conventional hip replacement as well as resurfacing hip replacement.The relevance of the recent isolated case reports on systemic metal toxicity was also discussed at the ICOR meeting. Although systemic metal toxicity appears to be a rare occurrence, there is a need to undertake appropriately designed studies to define the true prevalence of this phenomenon. There may be advantages in nesting these studies within registries. The ICOR meeting highlighted the implications of the MoM experience for the orthopaedic industry, regulators, and surgeons. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Replacement of extensive local bone loss is a significant clinical challenge. There are a variety of techniques available to the surgeon to manage this problem, each with their own advantages and disadvantages. It is well known that there is morbidity associated with harvesting of autogenous bone graft and limitations in the quantity of bone available. Alternatively allografts have been reported to have a significant incidence of postoperative infection and fracture as well as the potential risk of disease transmission. During the past 30 years a variety of synthetic bone graft substitutes has been developed with the aim to minimize these complications. The benefits of synthetic grafts include availability, sterility and reduced morbidity. The present article examines the relevance of synthetic bone graft substitutes, their mechanical properties and clinical application. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There has been decreased use of anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) because reverse TSA (rTSA) is increasingly being used for the same indications. Although short-term studies generally have not found survivorship differences between these implant designs, these studies are often small and their follow-up is limited to the short term. Likewise, the degree to which patient characteristics (such as gender, age, and American Society of Anesthesiologists [ASA] score) may or may not be associated with survivorship differences calls for larger and longer-term studies than is often possible in single-center designs. Large national registry studies may be able to help answer these questions.Questions/purposes: By analyzing a large Australian registry series of primary aTSAs with cemented all-polyethylene glenoids and rTSA for osteoarthritis (OA), we asked: (1) Is the revision risk for OA higher for aTSA with all-polyethylene glenoids or for rTSA, adjusting for patient characteristics such as age, gender, ASA score, and BMI? (2) Is the patient's gender associated with differences in the revision risk after controlling for the potentially confounding factors of age, ASA score, and BMI?Methods: In this comparative, observational registry study performed between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2019, all primary aTSAs with all-polyethylene glenoids and rTSA for OA as determined by the treating surgeon and reported to our national registry formed two groups for analysis. The study period was set to time-match for the collection of ASA score and BMI in 2012 and 2015, respectively. Our registry enrolls more than 97% of all shoulder arthroplasties undertaken in Australia. There were 29,294 primary shoulder arthroplasties; 1592 hemiarthroplasties, 1876 resurfacing and stemless shoulders, 269 stemmed, and 11,674 reverse shoulder arthroplasties were excluded for other diagnoses. A total of 1210 metal-backed glenoids in stemmed aTSA for OA were excluded. A total of 3795 primary aTSAs with all-polyethylene glenoids and 8878 primary rTSAs for OA were compared. An aTSA with an all-polyethylene glenoid and rTSA were more likely to be performed in women (56% and 61% of patients, respectively). The mean age was 69 ± 8 years for aTSA with all-polyethylene glenoids and 74 ± 8 years for rTSA. One aTSA for OA was performed in a patient with an unknown glenoid type. The ASA score (n = 12,438) and BMI (n = 11,233) were also recorded. The maximum follow-up was 5 years for both groups, and the mean follow-up was 2.6 ± 1.4 years for aTSA with all-polyethylene glenoids and 2.1 ± 1.4 years for rTSA. The endpoint was time to revision (all causes), and the cumulative percent revision was determined using Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship (time to revision) and HRs from Cox proportional hazard models that were adjusted for age, gender, ASA score, and BMI category.Results: Overall, there were no differences in the 4-year cumulative percent revision between the groups; the 4-year cumulative percent revision was 3.5% for aTSA with all-polyethylene glenoids (95% CI 2.9%-4.2%) and 3.0% for rTSA (95% CI 2.6%-3.5%). There was an increased risk of revision of rTSA compared with aTSA using all-polyethylene glenoids in the first 3 months (HR 2.17 [95% CI 1.25-3.70]; p = 0.006, adjusted for age, gender, ASA score, and BMI). After that time, there was no difference in the rate of revision, with the same adjustments. In the first 3 months, men undergoing rTSA had a higher rate of revision than men with aTSA using all-polyethylene glenoids (HR 4.0 [95% CI 1.72-9.09]; p = 0.001, adjusted for age, BMI, and ASA). There was no difference between men in the two groups after that time. Women with aTSA using all-polyethylene glenoids were at a greater risk of revision than women with rTSA from 3 months onward (HR 2.77 [95% CI 1.55-4.92]; p < 0.001, adjusted for age, BMI, and ASA), with no difference before that time.Conclusion: Given the absence of survivorship differences at 4 years between rTSA and aTSA, but in light of the differences in the revision risk between men and women, surgeons might select an aTSA with an all-polyethylene glenoid to treat OA, despite the current popularity of rTSA. However, there are survivorship differences between genders. Future studies should evaluate whether our comparative findings are replicated in men and women undergoing aTSA with all-polyethylene glenoids and rTSA for primary diagnoses such as rheumatoid arthritis or post-traumatic arthritis, and whether there are functional differences between the two implant designs when used for OA.Level Of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and purpose — The increase in shoulder arthroplasty may lead to a burden of revision surgery. This study compared the rate of (2nd) revision following aseptic 1st revision shoulder arthroplasty, considering the type of primary, and the class and type of the revision. Patients and methods — All aseptic 1st revisions of primary total reverse shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA group) and of primary total stemmed and stemless total shoulder arthroplasty (non-rTSA group) procedures reported to our national registry between April 2004 to December 2018 were included. The rate of 2nd revision was determined using Kaplan–Meier estimates and comparisons were made using Cox proportional hazards models. Results — There was an increased risk of 2nd revision in the 1st month only for the rTSA group (n = 700) compared with the non-rTSA group (n = 991); hazard ratio (HR) = 4.8 (95% CI 2.2–9). The cumulative percentage of 2nd revisions (CPR) was 24% in the rTSA group and 20% in the non-rTSA group at 8 years. There was an increased risk of 2nd revision for the type (cup vs. head) HR = 2.2 (CI 1.2–4.2), but not class of revision for the rTSA group. Minor (> 3 months) vs. major class revision, and humeral revision vs. all other revision types were second revision risk factors for the non-rTSA group. Interpretation — The CPR of revision shoulder arthroplasty was > 20% at 8 years and was influenced by the type of primary, the class, and the type of revision. The most common reasons for 2nd revision were instability/dislocation, loosening, and infection. [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]

The authors reflect on the role of orthopedic research registries. They suggest that inadequate research regulation and a lack of post-market surveillance have led to patients not being protected from harmful implants and procedures. They argue that regulations should be changed to require the registry-based monitoring of new implants during the phase of limited introduction and that those changes should be accompanied by a change in the way that orthopedic surgeons think and act.

In the article the guest editor reflects on the value of information received from registries and clinical trials. Registries provide community-based data which allow surgeons to perform arthroplasty surgery using best practice information. He opines that clinical trials and registries provide different information and both are important for improving joint replacement outcomes.

Background: Obesity is a known risk factor for the development of hip osteoarthritis. The aim of this study was to investigate whether obesity is associated with the risk of undergoing total hip replacement (THR) in Australia. Methods: A cohort study was conducted comparing data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) from 2017 to 2018. Body mass index (BMI) data for patients undergoing primary total hip replacement and resurfacing for osteoarthritis were obtained from the AOANJRR. The distribution of THR patients by BMI category was compared to the general population, in age and sex sub‐groups. Results: During the study period, 32 495 primary THR were performed for osteoarthritis in Australia. Compared to the general population, there was a higher prevalence of Class I, II and III obesity in patients undergoing THR in both sexes aged 35–74 years. Class III obese females and males aged 55–64 years were 2.9 and 1.7 times more likely to undergo THR, respectively (P < 0.001). Class III obese females and males underwent THR on average 5.7 and 7.0 years younger than their normal weight counterparts, respectively. Conclusion: Obese Australians are at increased risk of undergoing THR, and at a younger age. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The objective is to determine whether body mass index is associated with patient‐reported expectations and well‐being before primary total hip or total knee arthroplasty, and patient‐reported outcomes 6 months after surgery. Methods: Data were obtained from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. Outcome measures included pre‐operative expectations for post‐operative mobility, joint pain and health, pre‐ and post‐operative EQ‐5D‐5L, EQ‐VAS, Oxford Hip/Knee Scores and joint pain scales, and post‐operative perceived change and perceived satisfaction. Associations with BMI were assessed using chi‐square tests, analysis of variance and Linear Mixed Models equations. Results: Data were available for 12 816 primary THA patients and 20 253 primary TKA patients. Pre‐operatively, patients in higher BMI categories were significantly more likely to expect ongoing problems with mobility, more joint pain and poorer health following surgery (P<0.01 for all analyses). For arthroplasty patients, higher BMI was associated with poorer pre‐operative and post‐operative scores for all measures. BMI was positively associated with improvements in EQ‐5D, OHS/KS and joint pain. While between‐group differences were statistically significant, many were small in magnitude. There was no association between BMI and patient‐perceived change or satisfaction after arthroplasty. Conclusion: Patients undergoing THA/TKA, higher BMI was associated with lower pre‐operative expectations, poorer well‐being before surgery, and worse scores after surgery. Patients who were obese demonstrated comparable satisfaction with their operated joint, compared with non‐obese patients. BMI was associated with greater pre‐ to post‐operative improvements in outcome scores for EQ‐5D, VAS knee, OHS/OKS and joint pain but these differences may not be clinically important. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a serious complication after total hip arthroplasty (THA) and bearing material's associations to PJI prevalence is largely unknown. The main purposes of this study were to determine if revision for infection varied depending on the type of bearing surface used in primary THA and to study whether patient or implant related factors had an effect on this variation. Methods: A total of 177,237 primary THA procedures from the Australian Registry (AOANJRR) were analysed. 3 bearing surfaces were compared. Metal-on-highly cross-linked polyethylene (MoXP) bearing had been used in 95,129 hips, ceramic-on-highly cross-linked polyethylene (CoXP) in 24,269 hips, and ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC) in 57,839 hips. Revision rates for infection were compared between the 3 groups. Results: Both MoXP and CoXP had a higher revision rate for infection compared to CoC hips (hazard ratio [HR] 1.46 (1.25, 1.72), p < 0.001) and HR 1.42 (1.15, 1.75), p = 0.001 respectively). Patients aged 70 years or less had a lower revision rate for infection when a CoC bearing was used. This difference was independent of sex, and prostheses selection. No difference was evident if the femoral component was cemented or a head size of 28 mm was used. Discussion: In this registry-based material, use of a CoC bearing was associated with a lower risk of revision for infection in patients younger than 70 years when cementless femoral components were used. Further studies are needed to verify this finding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Some surgeons contend that unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) can easily be revised to a TKA when revision is called for, whereas others believe that this can be complex and technically demanding. There has been little research regarding the efficacy or rationale of using metal augmentation and tibial stem extensions when revising a UKA to a TKA. QUESTION/PURPOSES: (1) Is the use of stem extensions for the tibial component associated with increased survival when revising a UKA to a TKA? (2) Is the addition of modular augments associated with increased survival compared with stem extensions alone? (3) Is TKA design (minimally stabilized versus posterior-stabilized) or (4) tibial fixation (cemented versus cementless) associated with differences in survivorship?Methods: Data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) were used to analyze implant survival after revision of a UKA to a TKA, comparing results in which tibial components were used with and without modular components. The groups analyzed were TKA without a stem extension, those in which a tibial stem extension was used, and those in which a tibial stem extension was used together with an augment. There were 4438 revisions of UKAs to TKAs available for analysis. The mean duration of followup of patients having the TKA revisions was 5 years (SD, 3.5 years). There were 2901 (65%) procedures in which a tibial stem extension was not used, 870 (20%) procedures with a tibial stem extension, and 667 (15%) with a tibial stem extension and metallic augment. Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship were calculated and hazard ratios (HRs) from Cox proportional hazard models, adjusting for age and sex, were used to compare the rate of revision among groups. The overall 10-year cumulative percent revision (CPR) for UKA revised to a TKA was 16%.Results: At 10 years, the CPR was increased when a stem extension was not used (19%; 95% confidence interval [CI],16.5-20.7 without a stem extension compared with 13%; 95% CI, 9.2-17.0 with a stem extension; entire period HR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.10-1.89; p = 0.007). There was no difference in the 10-year CPR when an augment was used together with a stem extension compared with a stem extension alone (HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.85-1.86; p = 0.251). When minimally stabilized and posterior-stabilized TKAs were compared, there was no difference in survivorship. Minimally stabilized TKA designs without stem extensions showed higher CPR compared with when stem extensions were used (HR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.16-2.70; p = 0.007), whereas posterior-stabilized designs without stem extensions showed higher CPR only when compared with when stem extensions and augments were both used (HR, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.24-3.77; p = 0.006). Cementless fixation of the tibial component resulted in a higher CPR than when cement was used (HR, 1.36; 95% CI 1.08-1.71; p = 0.008).Conclusions: In this registry study, the risk of repeat revision after revision of a UKA to a TKA was lower when a tibial stem extension was used, but no such difference was found with respect to augments. Our study did not account for the degree of bone loss or surgeon preference when considering stems and augments. Further research to establish the degree of bone loss associated with UKA to TKA revision procedures will help clarify these findings.Level Of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Studies have identified increased cancer risk among patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA) compared to the general population. However, evidence of all-cause and site-specific cancer risk associated with different bearing surfaces has varied, with previous studies having short latency periods with respect to use of modern Metal-on-Metal (MoM) bearings. Using the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) linked to Australasian Association of Cancer Registries data, our aim was to evaluate risk of all-cause and site-specific cancer according to bearing surfaces in patients undergoing THA for osteoarthritis and whether risk increased with MoM bearings. Methods: Standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated by comparing number of observed cancer cases to expected number based on incidence rate in the Australian population. All-cause and site-specific cancer rates were calculated for all conventional stemmed THA (csTHA) and resurfacing THA (rsTHA) procedures performed for osteoarthritis. Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare cancer rates for MoM, ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC) and resurfacing procedures with a comparison group comprising metal-on-polyethylene (MoP) or ceramic-on-polyethylene (CoP) procedures. Results: There were 156,516 patients with csTHA procedures and 11,321 with rsTHA procedures for osteoarthritis performed between 1999 and 2012. Incidence of all-cause cancer was significantly higher for csTHA (SIR 1.24, 95% CI 1.22–1.26) and rsTHA (SIR 1.74, 95% CI 1.39–2.04) compared to the Australian population. For csTHA, there was no significant difference in all-site cancer rates for MoM (Hazard Ratio (HR) 1.01, 95%CI 0.96–1.07) or CoC (HR 0.98, 95%CI 0.94–1.02) compared to MoP and CoP bearings. Significantly increased risk of melanoma, non-Hodgkins lymphoma, myeloma, leukaemia, prostate, colon, bladder and kidney cancer was found for csTHA and, prostate cancer, melanoma for rsTHA procedures when compared to the Australian population, although risk was not significantly different across bearing surfaces. Conclusions: csTHA and rsTHA procedures were associated with increased cancer incidence compared to the Australian population. However, no excess risk was observed for MoM or CoC procedures compared to other bearing surfaces. [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: 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: The ability to identify which patients are at a greater risk of early revision knee arthroplasty has important practical and resource implications. Many international arthroplasty registries administer patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to provide a holistic assessment of pain, function, and quality of life. However, few PROM scores have been evaluated as potential indicators of early revision knee arthroplasty, and earlier studies have largely focused on knee-specific measures.Questions/purposes: This national registry-based study asked: (1) Which 6-month postoperative knee-specific and generic PROM scores are associated with early revision knee arthroplasty (defined as revision surgery performed 6 to 24 months after the primary procedure)? (2) Is a clinically important improvement in PROM scores (based on thresholds for the minimal important change) after primary knee arthroplasty associated with a lower risk of early revision?Methods: Preoperative and 6-month postoperative PROM scores for patients undergoing primary knee arthroplasty were sourced from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) and Arthroplasty Clinical Outcomes Registry National. Between January 2013 and December 2020, PROM data were available for 19,402 primary total knee arthroplasties; these data were linked to AOANJRR data on revision knee arthroplasty. Of these, 3448 procedures were excluded because they did not have 6-month PROM data, they had not reached the 6-month postoperative point, they had died before 24 months, or they had received revision knee arthroplasty before the 6-month PROMs assessment. After these exclusions, data were analyzed for 15,954 primary knee arthroplasties. Associations between knee-specific (knee pain, Oxford Knee Score, and 12-item Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score [KOOS-12]) or generic PROM scores (5-level EuroQol quality of life instrument [EQ-5D], EQ VAS, perceived change, and satisfaction) and revision surgery were explored using t-tests, chi-square tests, and regression models. Ninety-four revision procedures were performed at 6 to 24 months, most commonly for infection (39% [37 procedures]). The early revision group was younger than the unrevised group (mean age 64 years versus 68 years) and a between-group difference in American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade was noted. Apart from a small difference in preoperative low back pain for the early revision group (mean low back pain VAS 4.2 points for the early revision group versus 3.3 points for the unrevised group), there were no between-group differences in preoperative knee-specific or generic PROM scores on univariate analysis. As the inclusion of ASA grade or low back pain score did not alter the model results, the final multivariable model included only the most clinically plausible confounders (age and gender) as covariates. Multivariable models (adjusting for age and gender) were also used to examine the association between a clinically important improvement in PROM scores (based on published thresholds for minimal important change) and the likelihood of early revision.Results: After adjusting for age and gender, poor postoperative knee pain, Oxford, KOOS-12, EQ-5D, and EQ VAS scores were all associated with early revision. A one-unit increase (worsening) in knee pain at 6 months was associated with a 31% increase in the likelihood of revision (RR 1.31 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19 to 1.43]; p < 0.001). Reflecting the reversed scoring direction, a one-unit increase (improvement) in Oxford or KOOS-12 score was associated with a 9% and 5% reduction in revision risk, respectively (RR for Oxford: 0.91 [95% CI 0.90 to 0.93]; p < 0.001; RR for KOOS-12 summary: 0.95 [95% CI 0.94 to 0.97]; p < 0.001). Patient dissatisfaction (RR 6.8 [95% CI 3.7 to 12.3]) and patient-perceived worsening (RR 11.7 [95% CI 7.4 to 18.5]) at 6 months were also associated with an increased likelihood of early revision. After adjusting for age and gender, patients who did not achieve a clinically important improvement in PROM scores had a higher risk of early revision (RR 2.9 for the knee pain VAS, RR 4.2 for the Oxford Knee Score, RR 6.3 to 8.6 for KOOS-12, and RR 2.3 for EQ-5D) compared with those who did (reference group).Conclusion: Knee-specific and generic PROM scores offer an efficient approach to identifying patients at greater risk of early revision surgery, using either the 6-month score or the magnitude of improvement. These data indicate that surgeons can use single- and multi-item measures to detect a patient-perceived unsuccessful surgical outcome at 6 months after primary knee arthroplasty. Surgeons should be alert to poor PROM scores at 6 months or small improvements in scores (for example, less than 2 points for knee pain VAS or less than 10.5 points for Oxford Knee Score), which signal a need for direct patient follow-up or expedited clinical review.Level Of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: When arthroplasty is indicated for a femoral neck fracture (FNF), it is unclear whether total hip arthroplasty (THA) or hemiarthroplasty (HA) is best. This study compares data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry using contemporary surgical options.Methods: Patients from 60 to 85 years old who were treated with arthroplasty for FNF, between September 1999 and December 2019, were included if the femoral stems were cemented. Only THAs with femoral heads of ≥36 mm or dual-mobility articulations were included. Patients who had monoblock HA were excluded. Rates of revision for all aseptic failures and dislocation were compared. Competing risks of revision and death were considered using the cumulative incidence function. Subdistribution hazard ratios (HRs) for revision or death from a Fine-Gray regression model were used to compare THA and HA. Interactions of procedure with age group and sex were considered. Secondary analysis adjusting for body mass index (BMI) and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification was also considered.Results: There were 4,551 THA and 29,714 HA procedures included. The rate of revision for THA was lower for women from 60 to 69 years old (HR = 0.58 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.39 to 0.85]) and from 70 to 74 years old (HR = 0.65 [95% CI, 0.43 to 0.98]) compared with HA. However, women from 80 to 85 years old (HR = 1.56 [95% CI, 1.03 to 2.35]) and men from 75 to 79 years old (HR = 1.61 [95% CI, 1.05 to 2.46]) and 80 to 85 years old (HR = 2.73 [95% CI, 1.89 to 3.95]) had an increased rate of revision when THA was undertaken compared with HA. There was no difference in the rate of revision for dislocation between THA and HA for either sex or age categories.Conclusions: When contemporary surgical options for FNF are used, there is a benefit with respect to revision outcomes for THA in women who are <75 years old and a benefit for HA in women who are ≥80 years old and men who are ≥75 years old. There is no difference in dislocation rates.Level Of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Total hip replacement (THR) and total knee replacement (TKR) are cost‐effective interventions to reduce pain and disability associated with osteoarthritis, however there is no clear guidelines available to determine appropriate patient selection and the timing of surgery. This prospective cohort study aimed to evaluate the hospital‐ and surgeon‐level variation in the severity of patient‐reported symptoms prior to THR and TKR. Methods: Patients undergoing primary THR (n = 4330) or TKR (n = 7054) for osteoarthritis who participated in a national registry‐led Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) pilot program were included in the analysis. Pre‐operative Oxford Hip Score (OHS) and Oxford Knee Score (OKS) (range 0–48; representing worst to best hip/knee pain and function) data were examined for variation between private and public hospitals and between surgeons using linear mixed models. Results: Pre‐operative mean OHS was significantly higher (better) in patients whose surgery was performed in a private hospital compared to public hospitals; 21.39 versus 18.11 (mean difference 3.27, 95% CI 1.75, 4.79). For OKS, the difference between private hospital and public hospital scores was dependent on BMI and gender. Most of the variation in pre‐operative OHS and OKS was not at the individual hospital‐ or surgeon‐level, which explained only a negligible proportion of the model variance (⟨5%) for THR and TKR. Conclusion: Apart from a difference between private and public hospitals, there was little between‐hospital or between‐surgeon symptom variation in joint‐specific pain and function prior to THR or TKR. The findings suggest consistency in the surgical thresholds for patients being offered hip and knee joint replacement procedures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: There remains a lack of randomized trials investigating aspirin monotherapy for symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis following total hip arthroplasty (THA) or total knee arthroplasty (TKA).Objective: To determine whether aspirin was noninferior to enoxaparin in preventing symptomatic VTE after THA or TKA.Design, Setting, and Participants: Cluster-randomized, crossover, registry-nested trial across 31 hospitals in Australia. Clusters were hospitals performing greater than 250 THA or TKA procedures annually. Patients (aged ≥18 years) undergoing hip or knee arthroplasty procedures were enrolled at each hospital. Patients receiving preoperative anticoagulation or who had a medical contraindication to either study drug were excluded. A total of 9711 eligible patients were enrolled (5675 in the aspirin group and 4036 in the enoxaparin group) between April 20, 2019, and December 18, 2020. Final follow-up occurred on August 14, 2021.Interventions: Hospitals were randomized to administer aspirin (100 mg/d) or enoxaparin (40 mg/d) for 35 days after THA and for 14 days after TKA. Crossover occurred after the patient enrollment target had been met for the first group. All 31 hospitals were initially randomized and 16 crossed over prior to trial cessation.Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was symptomatic VTE within 90 days, including pulmonary embolism and deep venous thrombosis (DVT) (above or below the knee). The noninferiority margin was 1%. Six secondary outcomes are reported, including death and major bleeding within 90 days. Analyses were performed by randomization group.Results: Enrollment was stopped after an interim analysis determined the stopping rule was met, with 9711 patients (median age, 68 years; 56.8% female) of the prespecified 15 562 enrolled (62%). Of these, 9203 (95%) completed the trial. Within 90 days of surgery, symptomatic VTE occurred in 256 patients, including pulmonary embolism (79 cases), above-knee DVT (18 cases), and below-knee DVT (174 cases). The symptomatic VTE rate in the aspirin group was 3.45% and in the enoxaparin group was 1.82% (estimated difference, 1.97%; 95% CI, 0.54%-3.41%). This failed to meet the criterion for noninferiority for aspirin and was significantly superior for enoxaparin (P = .007). Of 6 secondary outcomes, none were significantly better in the enoxaparin group compared with the aspirin group.Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients undergoing hip or knee arthroplasty for osteoarthritis, aspirin compared with enoxaparin resulted in a significantly higher rate of symptomatic VTE within 90 days, defined as below- or above-knee DVT or pulmonary embolism. These findings may be informed by a cost-effectiveness analysis.Trial Registration: ANZCTR Identifier: ACTRN12618001879257. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Update: This article was updated on August 17, 2022, because of previous errors, which were discovered after the preliminary version of the article was posted online. On page 1462, in the first sentence of the Abstract section entitled "Results," the phrase that had read "and 36-mm heads had fewer dislocations than 28-mm (HR = 0.33 [95% CI, 0.16 to 0.68]; p = 0.003), but more dislocations than 32-mm heads (HR for >2 weeks = 2.25 [95% CI, 1.13 to 4.49]; p = 0.021)" now reads "and 36-mm heads had fewer dislocations than 28-mm (HR = 0.33 [95% CI, 0.16 to 0.68]; p = 0.003) and 32-mm heads (HR for ≥2 weeks = 0.44 [95% CI, 0.22 to 0.88]; p = 0.021)." On page 1468, in the last sentence of the section entitled "Acetabular Components with a Diameter of <51 mm," the phrase that had read "and HR for ≥2 weeks = 2.25 [95% CI, 1.13 to 4.49; p = 0.021]) ( Fig. 3 )" now reads "and HR for ≥2 weeks = 0.44 [95% CI, 0.22 to 0.88; p = 0.021]) ( Fig. 3 )." Finally, on page 1466, in the upper right corner of Figure 3 , under "32mm vs 36mm," the second line that had read "2Wks+: HR=2.25 (1.13, 4.49), p=0.021" now reads "2Wks+: HR=0.44 (0.22, 0.88), p= 0.021." [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Obesity is associated with the development of knee osteoarthritis (OA). The aim of this study was to examine the incidence of obesity in patients undergoing knee replacement (KR) for OA in Australia compared to the incidence of obesity in the general population. Methods: A cohort study was conducted, comparing data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2017–2018 National Health Survey with data from the National Joint Replacement Registry. The distribution of patients who underwent KR from July 2017 to June 2018 by BMI category was compared to the distribution of the general population, in age and gender sub‐groups. Results: During the study period, 35.6% of Australian adults were overweight and 31.3% were obese. Of the 56 217 patients who underwent primary KR for OA, 31.9% were overweight and 57.7% were obese. The relative risk of undergoing KR for OA increased with increasing BMI category. Class 1, 2 and 3 obese females aged 55–64 years were 4.7, 8.4 and 17.3 times more likely to undergo KR than their normal weight counterparts, respectively. Males in the same age and BMI categories were 3.4, 4.5 and 5.8 times more likely to undergo KR, respectively. Class 3 obese patients underwent KR 7 years younger, on average, than normal weight individuals. Conclusion: Obesity is associated with an increased risk of undergoing KR, and at a younger age, particularly for females. There is an urgent need for a societal level approach to address the prevalence of obesity, to reduce the burden of obesity related KR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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: For patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to provide meaningful information to support clinical care, we need to understand the magnitude of change that matters to patients. The aim of this study was to estimate minimal clinically important changes (MCICs) for the 12-item Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS-12) and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS-12) among people undergoing joint replacement for osteoarthritis.Methods: Individual-level data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry's pilot PROMs program were used for this analysis. Preoperative and 6-month postoperative HOOS-12 and KOOS-12 domain and summary impact scores plus a rating of patient-perceived change after surgery (on a 5-point scale ranging from "much worse" to "much better") were available. Three anchor-based approaches-mean change, receiver operating characteristics (ROC) based on Youden's J statistic, and predictive modeling using a binary logistic regression model-were used to calculate MCICs based on patient-perceived change.Results: Data were available for 1,490 patients treated with total hip replacement (THR) (mean age, 66 years; 54% female) and 1,931 patients treated with total knee replacement (TKR) (mean age, 66 years; 55% female). Using the mean change method, the MCIC ranged from 24.0 to 27.5 points for the HOOS-12 and 17.5 to 21.8 points for the KOOS-12. The ROC analyses generated comparable MCIC values (28.1 for HOOS-12 and a range of 15.6 to 21.9 for KOOS-12) with high sensitivity and specificity. Lower estimates were derived from predictive modeling following adjustment for the proportion of improved patients (range, 15.7 to 19.2 for HOOS-12 and 14.2 to 16.5 for KOOS-12).Conclusions: We report MCIC values for the HOOS-12 and KOOS-12 instruments that we derived using 3 different methods. As estimates obtained using predictive modeling can be adjusted for the proportion of improved patients, these may be the most clinically applicable. These MCIC values can be used to interpret important changes in pain, function, and quality of life from the patient's perspective.Levels Of Evidence: Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Computer navigation for total knee arthroplasty has improved alignment compared with that resulting from non-navigated total knee arthroplasty. This study analyzed data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry to examine the effect of computer navigation on the rate of revision of primary total knee arthroplasty. Methods: The cumulative percent revision following all non-navigated and navigated primary total knee arthroplasties performed in Australia from January 1, 2003, to December 31, 2012, was assessed. In addition, the type of and reason for revision as well as the effect of age, surgeon volume, and use of cement for the prosthesis were examined. Kaplan- Meier estimates of survivorship were used to describe the time to first revision. Hazard ratios (HRs) from Cox proportional hazards models, with adjustment for age and sex, were used to compare revision rates. Results: Computer navigation was used in 44,573 (14.1% of all) primary total knee arthroplasties, and the rate of its use increased from 2.4% in 2003 to 22.8% in 2012. Overall, the cumulative percent revision following non-navigated total knee arthroplasty at nine years was 5.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 5.1 to 5.4) compared with 4.6% (95% CI = 4.2 to 5.1) for computer-navigated total knee arthroplasty (HR = 1.05 [95% CI = 0.98 to 1.12], p = 0.15). There was a significant difference in the rate of revision following non-navigated total knee arthroplasty compared with that following navigated total knee arthroplasty for younger patients (HR = 1.13 [95% CI = 1.03 to 1.25], p = 0.011). Patients less than sixty-five years of age who had undergone non-navigated total knee arthroplasty had a cumulative percent revision of 7.8% (95% CI = 7.5 to 8.2) at nine years compared with 6.3% (95% CI = 5.5 to 7.3) for those who had undergone navigated total knee arthroplasty. Computer navigation led to a significant reduction in the rate of revision due to loosening/lysis (HR = 1.38 [95% CI = 1.13 to 1.67], p = 0.001), which is the most common reason for revision of total knee arthroplasty. Conclusions: Computer navigation reduced the overall rate of revision and the rate revision for loosening/lysis following total knee arthroplasty in patients less than sixty-five years of age. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Long-term implant survivorship in THA and TKA involves a combination of factors related to the patient, the implants used, and the decision-making and technical performance of the surgeon. It is unclear which of these factors is the most important in reducing the proportion of revision surgery.Questions/purposes: We used data from a large national registry to ask: In patients receiving primary THA and TKA for a diagnosis of osteoarthritis, do (1) the reasons for revision and (2) patient factors, the implants used, and the surgeon or surgical factors differ between surgeons performing THA and TKA who have a lower revision rate compared with all other surgeons?Methods: Data were analyzed for all THA and TKA procedures performed for a diagnosis of osteoarthritis from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) from September 1, 1999, when collection began, to December 31, 2018. The AOANJRR obtains data on more than 98% of joint arthroplasties performed in Australia. The 5-year cumulative percent revision (CPR) was identified for all THAs and TKAs performed for a diagnosis of osteoarthritis with 95% confidence intervals (overall CPR); the 5-year CPR with 95% CIs for each surgeon was calculated for THA and TKA separately. For surgeons to be included in the analysis, they had to have performed at least 50 procedures and have a 5-year CPR. The 5-year CPR with 95% CIs for each THA and TKA surgeon was compared with the overall CPR. Two groups were defined: low revision rate surgeons (the upper confidence level for a given surgeon at 5 years is less than 3.84% for THA and 4.32% for TKA), and all other surgeons (any surgeon whose CPR was higher than those thresholds). The thresholds were determined by setting a cutoff at 20% above the upper confidence level for that class. The approach we used to define a low revision rate surgeon was similar to that used by the AOANJRR for determining the better-performing prostheses and is recommended by the International Prosthesis Benchmarking Working Group. By defining the groups in this way, a significant difference between these two groups is created. Determining a reason for this difference is the purpose of presenting the proportions of different factors within each group. The study group for THA included 116 low revision rate surgeons, who performed 88,392 procedures (1619 revised, 10-year CPR 2.7% [95% CI 2.6% to 2.9%]) and 433 other surgeons, who performed 170,094 procedures (6911 revised, 10-year CPR 5.9% [95% CI 5.7% to 6.0%]). The study group for TKA consisted of 144 low revision rate surgeons, who performed 159,961 procedures (2722 revised, 10-year CPR 2.6% [95% CI 2.5% to 2.8%]) and 534 other surgeons, who performed 287,232 procedures (12,617 revised, 10-year CPR 6.4% [95% CI 6.3% to 6.6%]). These groups were defined a priori by their rate of revision, and the purpose of this study was to explore potential reasons for this observed difference.Results: For THA, the difference in overall revision rate between low revision rate surgeons and other surgeons was driven mainly by fewer revisions for dislocation, followed by component loosening and fracture in patients treated by low revision rate surgeons. For TKA, the difference in overall revision rate between low revision rate surgeons and other surgeons was driven mainly by fewer revisions for aseptic loosening, followed by instability and patellofemoral complications in patients treated by low revision rate surgeons. Patient-related factors were generally similar between low revision rate surgeons and other surgeons for both THA and TKA. Regarding THA, there were differences in implant factors, with low revision rate surgeons using fewer types of implants that have been identified as having a higher-than-anticipated rate of revision within the AOANJRR. Low revision rate surgeons used a higher proportion of hybrid fixation, although cementless fixation remained the most common choice. For surgeon factors, low revision rate surgeons were more likely to perform more than 100 THA procedures per year, while other surgeons were more likely to perform fewer than 50 THA procedures per year. In general, the groups of surgeons (low revision rate surgeons and other surgeons) differed less in terms of years of surgical experience than they did in terms of the number of cases they performed each year, although low revision rate surgeons, on average, had more years of experience and performed more cases per year. Regarding TKA, there were more differences in implant factors than with THA, with low revision rate surgeons more frequently performing patellar resurfacing, using an AOANJRR-identified best-performing prosthesis combination (with the lowest rates of revision), using fewer implants that have been identified as having a higher-than-anticipated rate of revision within the AOANJRR, using highly crosslinked polyethylene, and using a higher proportion of cemented fixation compared with other surgeons. For surgeon factors, low revision rate surgeons were more likely to perform more than 100 TKA procedures per year, whereas all other surgeons were more likely to perform fewer than 50 procedures per year. Again, generally, the groups of surgeons (low revision rate surgeons and other surgeons) differed less in terms of years of surgical experience than they did in terms of the number of cases they performed annually, although low revision rate surgeons, on average, had more years of experience and performed more cases per year.Conclusion: THAs and TKAs performed by surgeons with the lowest revision rates in Australia show reductions in all of the leading causes of revision for both THA and TKA, in particular, causes of revision related to the technical performance of these procedures. Patient factors were similar between low revision rate surgeons and all other surgeons for both THA and TKA. Low revision rate THA surgeons were more likely to use cement fixation selectively. Low revision rate TKA surgeons were more likely to use patella resurfacing, crosslinked polyethylene, and cemented fixation. Low revision rate THA and TKA surgeons were more likely to use an AOANJRR-identified best-performing prosthesis combination and to use fewer implants identified by the AOANJRR as having a higher-than-anticipated revision rate. To reduce the rate of revision THA and TKA, surgeons should consider addressing modifiable factors related to implant selection. Future research should identify surgeon factors beyond annual case volume that are important to improving implant survivorship.Level Of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A socioeconomic gradient exists in the utilisation of total hip replacements (THR) and total knee replacements (TKR) for osteoarthritis. However, the relations between socioeconomic status (SES) and time to THR or TKR is unknown. Aim: To describe the association between SES and time to THR and TKR. Methods: One thousand and seventy‐two older adults residing in Tasmania, Australia, were studied. Incident primary THR and TKR were determined by data linkage to the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. At baseline, each participant's area‐level SES was determined using the Index of Relative Socioeconomic Advantage and Disadvantage (IRSAD) from the Australian Bureau of Statistics' 2001 census data. The IRSAD was analysed in two ways: (i) categorised into quartiles, whereby quartile 1 represented the most socioeconomically disadvantaged group; and (ii) the cohort dichotomised at the quartile 1 cut‐point. Results: The mean age was 63.0 (±7.5) years and 51% were women. Over the median follow up of 12.9 (interquartile range: 12.2–13.9) years, 56 (5%) participants had a THR and 79 (7%) had a TKR. Compared with the most disadvantaged quartile, less disadvantaged participants were less likely to have a THR (i.e. less disadvantaged participants had a longer time to THR; hazard ratio (HR): 0.56; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.32, 1.00) but not TKR (HR: 0.90; 95% CI 0.53, 1.54). However, the former became non‐significant after adjustment for pain and radiographic osteoarthritis, suggesting that the associations may be mediated by these factors. Conclusions: The present study suggests that time to joint replacement was determined according to the symptoms/need of the participants rather than their SES. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and purpose The Kaplan-Meier (KM) method is often used in the analysis of arthroplasty registry data to estimate the probability of revision after a primary procedure. In the presence of a competing risk such as death, KM is known to overestimate the probability of revision. We investigated the degree to which the risk of revision is overestimated in registry data. Patients and methods We compared KM estimates of risk of revision with the cumulative incidence function (CIF), which takes account of death as a competing risk. We considered revision by (1) prosthesis type in subjects aged 75-84 years with fractured neck of femur (FNOF), (2) cement use in monoblock prostheses for FNOF, and (3) age group in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA) for osteoarthritis (OA). Results In 5,802 subjects aged 75-84 years with a monoblock prosthesis for FNOF, the estimated risk of revision at 5 years was 6.3% by KM and 4.3% by CIF, a relative difference (RD) of 46%. In 9,821 subjects of all ages receiving an Austin Moore (non-cemented) prosthesis for FNOF, the RD at 5 years was 52% and for 3,116 subjects with a Thompson (cemented) prosthesis, the RD was 79%. In 44,365 subjects with a THA for OA who were less than 70 years old, the RD was just 1.4%; for 47,430 subjects > 70 years of age, the RD was 4.6% at 5 years. Interpretation The Kaplan-Meier method substantially overestimated the risk of revision compared to estimates using competing risk methods when the risk of death was high. The bias increased with time as the incidence of the competing risk of death increased. Registries should adopt methods of analysis appropriate to the nature of their data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and purpose Despite concerns regarding a higher risk of revision, unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) continues to be used as an alternative to total knee arthroplasty (TKA). There are, however, limited data on the subsequent outcome when a UKA is revised. We examined the survivorship for primary UKA procedures that have been revised. Methods We used data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) to analyze the survivorship of 1,948 revisions of primary UKA reported to the Registry between September 1999 and December 2008. This was compared to the results of revisions of primary TKA reported during the same period where both the femoral and tibial components were revised. The Kaplan-Meier method for modeling survivorship was used. Results When a primary UKA was revised to another UKA (both major and minor revisions), it had a cumulative per cent revision (CPR) of 28 and 30 at 3 years, respectively. The CPR at 3 years when a UKA was converted to a TKA was 10. This is similar to the 3-year CPR (12) found earlier for primary TKA where both the femoral and tibial components were revised. Interpretation When a UKA requires revision, the best outcome is achieved when it is converted to a TKA. This procedure does, however, have a major risk of re-revision, which is similar to the risk of re-revision of a primary TKA that has had both the femoral and tibial components revised. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: To examine the association between circulating 25(OH)D concentrations and incidence of total hip replacement for osteoarthritis in a prospective cohort study.Methods: This study examined a random sample of 2651 participants in the Melbourne Collaborative Cohort Study who had 25(OH)D concentrations measured from dried blood spots collected in 1990-1994. Participants who underwent total hip replacement for osteoarthritis between January 2001 and December 2018 were identified by linking the cohort records to the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. Cox proportional hazard regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of total hip replacement for osteoarthritis in relation to 25(OH)D concentrations, adjusted for confounders.Results: Eighty-six men and eighty-seven women had a total hip replacement for osteoarthritis. Compared with men in the lowest (1st) quartile of 25(OH)D concentration, the HR for total hip replacement was 2.32 (95% CI 1.05, 5.13) for those in the 2nd quartile, 2.77 (95% CI 1.28, 6.00) for those in the 3rd quartile, and 1.73 (95% CI 0.75, 4.02) for those in the highest quartile of 25(OH)D concentrations (p for trend 0.02). There was little evidence of an association in women.Conclusions: Higher circulating 25(OH)D concentrations were associated with an increased risk of total hip replacement for osteoarthritis in men but not in women. Although the underlying mechanism warrants further investigation, our findings highlight the need to determine the optimal levels of circulating 25(OH)D to reduce the risk of hip osteoarthritis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are commonly used to evaluate surgical outcome in patients undergoing joint replacement surgery, however routine collection from the target population is often incomplete. Representative samples are required to allow inference from the sample to the population. Although higher capture rates are desired, the extent to which this improves the representativeness of the sample is not known. We aimed to measure the representativeness of data collected using an electronic PROMs capture system with or without telephone call follow up, and any differences in PROMS reporting between electronic and telephone call follow up. Methods: Data from a pilot PROMs program within a large national joint replacement registry were examined. Telephone call follow up was used for people that failed to respond electronically. Data were collected pre-operatively and at 6 months post-operatively. Responding groups (either electronic only or electronic plus telephone call follow up) were compared to non-responders based on patient characteristics (joint replaced, bilaterality, age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologist (ASA) score and Body Mass Index (BMI)) using chi squared test or ANOVA, and PROMs for the two responder groups were compared using generalised linear models adjusted for age and sex. The analysis was restricted to those undergoing primary elective hip, knee or shoulder replacement for osteoarthritis. Results: Pre-operatively, 73.2% of patients responded electronically and telephone follow-up of non-responders increased this to 91.4%. Pre-operatively, patients responding electronically, compared to all others, were on average younger, more likely to be female, and healthier (lower ASA score). Similar differences were found when telephone follow up was included in the responding group. There were little (if any) differences in the post-operative comparisons, where electronic responders were on average one year younger and were more likely to have a lower ASA score compared to those not responding electronically, but there was no significant difference in sex or BMI. PROMs were similar between those reporting electronically and those reporting by telephone. Conclusion: Patients undergoing total joint replacement who provide direct electronic PROMs data are younger, healthier and more likely to be female than non-responders, but these differences are small, particularly for post-operative data collection. The addition of telephone call follow up to electronic contact does not provide a more representative sample. Electronic-only follow up of patients undergoing joint replacement provides a satisfactory representation of the population invited to participate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and purpose — A challenge comparing outcomes from total hip arthroplasty between countries is variation in preoperative characteristics, particularly comorbidity. Therefore, we investigated between-country variation in comorbidity in patients based on ASA class distribution, and determined any variation of ASA class to mortality risk between countries. Patients and methods — All arthroplasty registries collecting ASA class and mortality data in patients with elective primary THAs performed 2012–2016 were identified. Survival analyses of the influence of ASA class on 1-year mortality were performed by individual registries, followed by meta-analysis of aggregated data. Results — 6 national registries and 1 US healthcare organization registry with 418,916 THAs were included. There was substantial variation in the proportion of ASA class III/IV, ranging from 14% in the Netherlands to 39% in Finland. Overall, 1-year mortality was 0.93% (95% CI 0.87–1.01) and increased from 0.2% in ASA class I to 8.9% in class IV. The association between ASA class and mortality measured by hazard ratios (HR) was strong in all registries even after adjustment for age and sex, which reduced them by half in all registries. Combined adjusted HRs were 2.0, 6.1, and 22 for ASA class II–IV vs. I, respectively. Associations were moderately heterogeneous across registries. Interpretation — We observed large variation in ASA class distribution between registries, possibly explained by differences in background morbidity and/or international variation in access to surgery. The similar, strong mortality trends by ASA class between countries enhance the relevance of its use as an indicator of comorbidity in international registry studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]