Search

Background: Joint arthroplasty registries traditionally report survivorship outcomes mainly on primary joint arthroplasty. The outcome of first revision procedures is less commonly reported, because large numbers of primary procedures are required to analyze a sufficient number of first revision procedures. Additionally, adequate linkage of primary procedures to revisions and mortality is required. When undertaking revision hip surgery, it is important for surgeons to understand the outcomes of these procedures to better inform patients.Questions/purposes: Using data from a large national joint registry, we asked: (1) What is the overall rate of revision of the first aseptic revision procedure for a primary THA? (2) Does the rate of revision of the first revision vary by the diagnosis for the first revision? (3) What is the mortality after the first revision, and does it vary by the reason for first revision?Methods: The Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry longitudinally maintains data on all primary and revision joint arthroplasties, with nearly 100% capture. The analyses for this study were performed on primary THA procedures in patients with a diagnosis of osteoarthritis up to December 31, 2020, who had undergone subsequent revision. We excluded all primary THAs involving metal-on-metal and ceramic-on-metal bearing surfaces and prostheses with exchangeable necks because these designs may have particular issues associated with revisions, such as extensive soft tissue destruction, that are not seen with conventional bearings, making a comparative analysis of the first revision involving these bearing surfaces more complicated. Metal-on-metal bearing surfaces have not been used in Australia since 2017. We identified 17,046 first revision procedures from the above study population and after exclusions, included 13,713 first revision procedures in the analyses. The mean age at the first revision was 71 ± 11 years, and 55% (7496 of 13,713) of the patients were women. The median (IQR) time from the primary procedure to the first revision was 3 years (0.3 to 7.3), ranging from 0.8 years for the diagnosis of dislocation and instability to 10 years for osteolysis. There was some variation depending on the reason for the first revision. For example, patients undergoing revision for fracture were slightly older (mean age 76 ± 11 years) and patients undergoing revision for dislocation were more likely to be women (61% [2213 of 3620]). The registry has endeavored to standardize the sequence of revisions and uses a numerical approach to describe revision procedures. The first revision is the revision of a primary procedure, the second revision is the revision of the first revision, and so on. We therefore described the outcome of the first revision as the cumulative percent second revision. The outcome measure was the cumulative percent revision, which was defined using Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship to describe the time to the second revision. Hazard ratios from Cox proportional hazards models, adjusting for age and gender, were performed to compare the revision rates among groups. When possible, the cumulative percent second revision at the longest follow-up timepoint was determined with the available data, and when there were insufficient numbers, we used appropriate earlier time periods.Results: The cumulative percent second revision at 18 years was 26% (95% confidence interval [CI] 24% to 28%). When comparing the outcome of the first revision by reason, prosthesis dislocation or instability had the highest rate of second revision compared with the other reasons for first revision. Dual-mobility prostheses had a lower rate of second revision for dislocation or instability than head sizes 32 mm or smaller and when compared to constrained prostheses after 3 months. There was no difference between dual-mobility prostheses and head sizes larger than 32 mm. There were no differences in the rate of second revision when first revisions for loosening, periprosthetic fracture, and osteolysis were compared. If cemented femoral fixation was performed at the time of the first revision, there was a higher cumulative percent second revision for loosening than cementless fixation from 6 months to 6 years, and after this time, there was no difference. The overall mortality after a first revision of primary conventional THA was 1% at 30 days, 2% at 90 days, 5% at 1 year, and 40% at 10 years. A first revision for periprosthetic fracture had the highest mortality at all timepoints compared with other reasons for the first revision.Conclusion: Larger head sizes and dual-mobility cups may help reduce further revisions for dislocation, and the use of cementless stems for a first revision for loosening seems advantageous. Surgeons may counsel patients about the higher risk of death after first revision procedures, particularly if the first revision is performed for periprosthetic fracture.Level of Evidence Level III, therapeutic study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and purpose -- Total knee replacement (TKR) studies usually analyze all-cause revision when considering relationships with patient and prosthesis factors. We studied how these factors impact different revision diagnoses. Patients and methods -- We used data from 2003 to 2019 of TKR for osteoarthritis from the arthroplasty registries of Sweden, Australia, and Kaiser Permanente, USA to study patient and prosthesis characteristics for specific revision diagnoses. There were 1,072,924 primary TKR included and 36,626 were revised. Factors studied included age, sex, prosthesis constraint, fixation method, bearing mobility, polyethylene type, and patellar component use. Revision diagnoses were arthrofibrosis, fracture, infection, instability, loosening, pain, patellar reasons, and wear. Odds ratios (ORs) for revision were estimated and summary effects were calculated using a meta-analytic approach. Results -- We found between-registry consistency in 15 factor/reason analyses. Risk factors for revision for arthro- fibrosis were age < 65 years (OR 2.0; 95% CI 1.4--2.7) and mobile bearing designs (MB) (OR 1.7; CI 1.1--2.5), for fracture were female sex (OR 3.2; CI 2.2--4.8), age ≥ 65 years (OR 2.8; CI 1.9--4) and posterior stabilized prostheses (PS) (OR 2.1; CI 1.3--3.5), for infection were male sex (OR 1.9; CI 1.7--2.0) and PS (OR 1.5; CI 1.2--1.8), for instability were age < 65 years (OR 1.5; CI 1.3--1.8) and MB (OR 1.5; CI 1.1--2.2), for loosening were PS (OR 1.5; CI 1.4--1.6), MB (OR 2.2; CI 1.6--3.0) and use of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (OR 2.3; CI 1.8--2.9), for patellar reasons were not resurfacing the patella (OR 13.6; CI 2.1--87.2) and MB (OR 2.0; CI 1.2--3.3) and for wear was cementless fixation (OR 4.9; CI 4.3--5.5). Interpretation -- Patients could be counselled regarding specific age and sex risks. Use of minimally stabilized, fixed bearing, cemented prostheses, and patellar components is encouraged to minimize revision risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and purpose -- Characteristics of patients receiving total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and prostheses used vary between regions and change with time. How these practice variations influence revision remains unclear. We combined registry data for better understanding of the impact of variation, which could potentially improve revision rates. Patients and methods -- We used data from 2003 to 2019 for primary TKA from arthroplasty registries of Sweden (SKAR), Australia (AOANJRR), and Kaiser Permanente (KPJRR). We included 1,072,924 TKA procedures for osteoarthritis. Factors studied included age, sex, ASA class, BMI category, prosthesis constraint, fixation, bearing mobility, patellar resurfacing, and polyethylene type. Cumulative percentage revision (CPR) was calculated using Kaplan-- Meier estimates, and unadjusted Cox hazard ratios were used for comparisons. Random-effects generic inverse-variance meta-analytic methods were used to determine summary effects. Results -- We found similarities in age and sex, but between-registry differences occurred in the other 7 factors studied. Patients from Sweden had lower BMI and ASA scores compared with other registries. Use of cement fixation was similar in the SKAR and KPJRR, but there were marked differences in patellar resurfacing and posterior stabilized component use. Meta-analysis results regarding survivorship favored patients aged ≥ 65 years and minimally stabilized components. There were inconsistent results with time for sex, fixation, and bearing mobility, and no differences for the patellar resurfacing or polyethylene type comparisons. Interpretation -- Marked practice variation was found. Use of minimally stabilized and possibly also cemented and fixed bearing prostheses is supported. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

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

Background 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]

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: Patellofemoral arthroplasty (PFA) is one option for the treatment of isolated patellofemoral osteoarthritis, but there are limited data regarding the procedure and results. Because isolated patellofemoral arthritis is relatively uncommon, available case series generally are small, and even within national registries, sample sizes are limited. Combining data from multiple registries may aid in assessing worldwide PFA usage and survivorship.Questions/purposes: We combined and compared data from multiple large arthroplasty registries worldwide to ask: (1) What proportion of patients undergoing primary knee arthroplasty have PFA? (2) What are the patient and prosthesis characteristics associated with PFA in common practice, as reflected in registries? (3) What is the survivorship free from revision of PFA and what are the reasons for and types of revisions?Methods: Data were provided by eight registries that are members of the International Society of Arthroplasty Registries (ISAR) who agreed to share aggregate data: Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Sweden, Finland, Norway, the Netherlands, and the United States. De-identified data were obtained for PFA performed from either the beginning of year 2000, or the earliest recorded implantation date after that in each individual registry when PFA data collection commenced, up to December 31, 2016. This included patient demographics, implant use, all-cause revision rate (determined by cumulative percent revision [CPR]), and reasons for and type of revision.Results: During the data collection period, 6784 PFAs were performed in the eight countries. PFAs comprised less than 1% of primary knee replacements in all registries. Patient demographics were comparable in all countries. Patients were generally more likely to be women than men, and the mean age ranged from 50 years to 60 years. All registries showed a high rate of revision for PFA. The 5-year CPR for any reason ranged from 8.0% (95% CI 4.5 to 11.5) in Norway to 18.1% (95% CI 15.5 to 20.7) in the Netherlands. The most common reason for revision across all countries was disease progression (42%, 434 of 1034). Most PFAs (83%, 810 of 980) were revised to a TKA.Conclusions: The revision risk of PFA in all registries surveyed was more than three times higher than the reported revision risk of TKA at the same times. The survivorship of PFA is similar to that of the no-longer-used procedure of metal-on-metal conventional hip replacement. Although there may be potential functional benefits from PFA, these findings of consistent and alarmingly high rates of revision should create concern, particularly as this procedure is often used in younger patients.Level Of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

Background: 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]

Background: Total knee replacement (TKR) has been shown to perform differently in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) when compared to osteoarthritis (OA). In this study, we compare the survivorship between these two groups and examine patient and prosthesis factors that impact the revision rate. Methods: All RA and OA patients undergoing TKR in Australia from 1 September 1999 to 31 December 2016 were included. Revision rates were assessed using Kaplan–Meier estimates of survivorship. The cumulative percent revision analysed age, gender, prosthesis constraint and revision for infection. Results: There were 541 744 TKR procedures performed including 7542 patients with RA. RA declined as the primary diagnosis from 2.4% of all TKR in 2003 to 0.9% in 2016. Male sex was an independent revision risk in RA patients (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.66, P < 0.001) and OA patients (3.5 years+: HR = 1.09 (1.04–1.15), P < 0.001). Male RA patients had a higher revision rate for infection than females (HR = 3.14, P < 0.001). Females with RA had a lower cumulative percent revision compared to OA females, but males showed no difference between diagnoses. Revision in RA patients was not influenced by age. Compared to OA, RA patients had a decreased revision rate for those aged <65 years, but not for patients aged ≥65 years. Conclusion: The rate of revision after TKR in RA patients is lower than those with OA, but patients with RA are at increased risk of infection, particularly the male group. Prosthesis constraint had no influence on revision rate. Mortality in those undergoing TKR with RA was higher than in those with OA. This study shows that the use of primary total knee replacement (TKR) for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is declining. The rate of revision after TKR in RA patients is lower than those with osteoarthritis, but patients with RA are at increased risk of infection, particularly the male group. For patients diagnosed with RA undergoing TKR, the rate of revision varies with gender but not with age. [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]

Background: The effect of alternative bearing materials on the risk of revision due to infection after total knee replacement remains uncertain. By reducing the immunomodulating polyethylene wear-particle burden and with different substrate bacterial adhesion properties, Oxinium oxidized zirconium and cross-linked polyethylene (XLPE) could alter infection risk. The purpose of the current study was to analyze the risk of revision for infection in 3 comparisons of bearing combinations.Methods: To evaluate the risk of revision for infection with XLPE, cobalt-chromium (CoCr) on XLPE was compared with CoCr on non-cross-linked polyethylene (NXLPE). To evaluate Oxinium, Oxinium-NXLPE was compared with CoCr-NXLPE, and to evaluate the possibility of an additional beneficial effect of Oxinium on XLPE, Oxinium-XLPE was compared with CoCr-XLPE. The cumulative percent revision (CPR) and hazard ratio (HR) for revision for infection in primary total knee replacement for osteoarthritis were determined from registry data from September 1, 1999, to December 31, 2015. Revisions within 6 months following the primary surgery were censored from the analysis, while procedures with posterior stabilized or fully stabilized total knee replacements as well as prostheses with a known higher risk of revision were excluded. Analyses were stratified by age, sex, and fixation type.Results: Of the 326,603 included primary total knee replacements, 1,511 (0.46%) were revised for infection. The risk of revision for infection was lower for CoCr-XLPE compared with CoCr-NXLPE (HR = 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.65 to 0.84; p < 0.001). This effect was apparent for both male and female patients overall, all fixation types, antibiotic cement use, those <65 years of age, and male patients ≥65 years of age. However, for female patients ≥65 years of age, there was no difference. Overall, Oxinium-NXLPE had the same revision risk as CoCr-NXLPE regardless of fixation; however, for cemented fixation, subanalysis showed a lower risk for Oxinium-NXLPE compared with CoCr-NXLPE (HR = 0.69; 95% CI = 0.51 to 0.94; p = 0.018). Oxinium-XLPE had the same revision risk for infection as CoCr-XLPE overall, among male patients, and when cemented fixation had been used.Conclusions: In this registry analysis, CoCr-XLPE had a 26% lower risk of revision for infection than CoCr-NXLPE, suggesting a reduction of wear particle-induced immunomodulation with XLPE. Oxinium-XLPE had the same risk as CoCr-XLPE. Overall, Oxinium did not reduce the infection risk.Level Of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Controversy still exists as to the optimum management of the posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) in total knee arthroplasty. Surgeons can choose to kinematically substitute the PCL with a posterior-stabilized total knee replacement or alternatively to utilize a cruciate-retaining, also known as minimally stabilized, total knee replacement. Proponents of posterior-stabilized total knee replacement propose that the reported lower survivorship in registries when directly compared with minimally stabilized total knee replacement is due to confounders such as selection bias because of the preferential usage of posterior-stabilized total knee replacement in more complex or severe cases. In this study, we aimed to eliminate these possible confounders by performing an instrumental variable analysis based on surgeon preference to choose either posterior-stabilized or minimally stabilized total knee replacement, rather than the actual prosthesis received.Methods: Cumulative percent revision, hazard ratio (HR), and revision diagnosis data were obtained from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry from September 1, 1999, to December 31, 2014, for 2 cohorts of patients, those treated by high-volume surgeons who preferred minimally stabilized replacements and those treated by high-volume surgeons who preferred posterior-stabilized replacements. All patients had a diagnosis of osteoarthritis and underwent fixed-bearing total knee replacement with patellar resurfacing.Results: At 13 years, the cumulative percent revision was 5.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.0% to 6.2%) for the surgeons who preferred the minimally stabilized replacements compared with 6.0% (95% CI, 4.2% to 8.5%) for the surgeons who preferred the posterior-stabilized replacements. The revision risk for the surgeons who preferred posterior-stabilized replacements was significantly higher for all causes (HR = 1.45 [95% CI, 1.30 to 1.63]; p < 0.001), for loosening or lysis (HR = 1.93 [95% CI, 1.58 to 2.37]; p < 0.001), and for infection (HR = 1.51 [95% CI, 1.25 to 1.82]; p < 0.001). This finding was irrespective of patient age and was evident with cemented fixation and with both cross-linked polyethylene and non-cross-linked polyethylene. However, the higher revision risk was only evident in male patients.Conclusions: There was a 45% higher risk of revision for the patients of surgeons who preferred a posterior-stabilized total knee replacement compared with the patients of surgeons who preferred a minimally stabilized total knee replacement.Level Of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Oxidized zirconium (Oxinium) was introduced as an alternative bearing surface to cobalt-chromium (CoCr) in an attempt to reduce polyethylene wear and decrease aseptic mechanical failure of total knee replacements. While noncomparative reports have been described as promising, we were aware of no short or long-term clinical studies showing the superiority of Oxinium on polyethylene as a bearing surface. Using data from a comprehensive national joint replacement registry, we compared the long-term outcomes after cruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with an Oxinium femoral component and those with the same prosthetic design but with a CoCr femoral component.Methods: The cohorts consisted of 17,577 cemented Genesis-II cruciate-retaining total knee replacements using non-cross-linked polyethylene, which included 11,608 with CoCr femoral components and 5,969 with Oxinium femoral components. The cumulative percent revision and hazard ratio (HR) for revision risk were estimated for the cemented Genesis-II Oxinium and CoCr cruciate-retaining TKAs performed in Australia from September 1, 1999, to December 31, 2013. In addition, the revision diagnoses and the effects of age and patellar resurfacing were examined.Results: No difference in the HR for revision risk was found between the Oxinium and CoCr cohorts for any age category for all causes of revision (HR = 0.92 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.92 to 1.29]; p = 0.329), loosening or lysis, or aseptic causes, except for loosening or lysis in the group of patients who were ≥75 years old (p = 0.033). In these patients, TKA with Oxinium femoral components had a higher rate of revision. Younger patients preferentially received Oxinium femoral components. The revision risk was not affected by patellar resurfacing or nonresurfacing. At 12 years, the cumulative percent revision was 4.8% (95% CI, 4.2% to 5.4%) for the CoCr Genesis-II prosthesis compared with 7.7% (95% CI, 6.2% to 9.5%) for the Oxinium Genesis-II prosthesis.Conclusions: In this cohort study involving the same prosthetic design, Oxinium femoral components did not reduce revision rates for all causes, loosening or lysis, or when infection as a cause of revision was removed compared with the same CoCr femoral component across all age groups including patients who were <55 years old. The cumulative percent revision was greater for the Oxinium components than for the CoCr components.Level Of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and purpose -- We compared the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) and the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI) regarding patient, prosthesis, and procedure characteristics as well as revision rates for uncemented short-stem total hip arthroplasties (THAs). Patients and methods -- All THAs with an uncemented short-stemmed femoral component performed between 2009 and 2021 were included from the AOANJRR (n = 9,328) and the LROI (n = 3,352). Kaplan-Meier survival analyses and multivariable Schemper's weighted Cox regression analyses with data from 2009-2021 and 2015-2021 were performed with overall revision as endpoint. Results -- In Australia, the proportion of male patients (51% vs. 40%), patients with ASA III-IV score (30% vs. 3.7%), BMI ≥ 30.0 (39% vs. 19%), and femoral heads of 36 mm (58% vs. 20%) were higher than in the Netherlands. Short-stem THAs in Australia and the Netherlands had comparable 10-year revision rates (3.4%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.9-4.0 vs. 4.8%, CI 3.7-6.3). Multivariable Cox regression analyses with data from 2009-2021 showed a higher risk for revision of short-stem THAs performed in the Netherlands (HR 1.8, CI 1.1-2.8), whereas the risk for revision was comparable (HR 0.9, CI 0.5-1.7) when adjusted for more potential confounders using data from 2015-2021. Conclusion -- Short-stem THAs in Australia and the Netherlands have similar crude and adjusted revision rates, which are acceptable at 10 years of follow-up. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: We aimed to systematically review contemporary evidence on the barriers and enablers to implementing and sustaining short‐stay arthroplasty programs for elective primary total hip and knee replacement from the perspectives of patients, health professionals, carers, healthcare administrators, funders and policymakers and to map the findings to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Methods: Medline, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched (up to 19 August 2023). Primary qualitative or mixed‐methods studies reporting on perspectives relating to the review aims that utilised a short‐stay programme were eligible for inclusion. Study quality was assessed using the qualitative critical appraisal tool from the Joanna Briggs Institute. Data were analysed inductively. The final themes were mapped to the TDF. The confidence in the findings was assessed using GRADE CERQual. Results: Fifteen studies were included. Twelve barrier themes and twelve enabler themes were identified. Three themes were graded with high confidence, 10 were graded with moderate confidence, three were graded with low confidence, and eight were graded with very low confidence. The most pertinent domains that the themes were mapped to for patients were beliefs about capabilities, reinforcement, and the environmental context and resources. Health professionals identified knowledge, environmental context and resources as important domains. Two domains were identified for carers: (1) social/professional role and identity and (2) memory, attention, and decision processes. Conclusion: We identified key barrier and enabler themes linked to the TDF that can be used to guide implementation initiatives and promote the sustainability of short‐stay arthroplasty programs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The reported usage of UKA is around 10% in the UK, Australian and New Zealand joint registries. However, some authors recommend that a higher UKA usage of 20%, or a minimum 12 UKA cases per year, would reduce revision rates. The purpose of this study was to analyze the percentage of surgeons performing the recommended thresholds in these 3 registries. Methods: Data from the UK, Australian and New Zealand registry databases was utilized from the time period since their respective introduction until 2017. All primary TKA and UKA performed for the diagnosis of osteoarthritis by surgeons with more than 100 recorded knee arthroplasties in their respective registry were included. The results between the registries were compared and a pooled analysis was performed. The number of surgeons meeting the recommended caseload of > 20% UKA yearly or 12 UKA cases yearly was calculated. Results: We identified 3037 knee surgeons performing 1,556,440 knee arthroplasties, of which 131,575 were UKA (8.45%). Over 50% of knee surgeons in each registry had a proportion of less than 5% UKA of their knee replacement procedures. After pooling of data, median surgeon UKA usage was 2.0% (IQR 0–9.1%). The percentage of surgeons meeting the proposed caseload criteria was highest in New Zealand, 16.3%, followed by the UK at 12.4% and Australia 11.3% (p = 0.28). Conclusion: More than 50% of knee surgeons in UK, Australian and New Zealand joint registries perform less than 5% of UKA yearly. The majority of experienced knee surgeons are not meeting the recommended minimum thresholds, which might indicate that the recommended thresholds are not feasible for the vast majority of knee surgeons. The reasons behind this require further research. Level of Evidence: Level III retrospective registry study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Short-stay joint replacement programmes are used in many countries but there has been little scrutiny of safety outcomes in the literature. We aimed to systematically review evidence on the safety of short-stay programmes versus usual care for total hip (THR) and knee replacement (KR), and optimal patient selection. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-experimental studies including a comparator group reporting on 14 safety outcomes (hospital readmissions, reoperations, blood loss, emergency department visits, infection, mortality, neurovascular injury, other complications, periprosthetic fractures, postoperative falls, venous thromboembolism, wound complications, dislocation, stiffness) within 90 days postoperatively in adults ≥ 18 years undergoing primary THR or KR were included. Secondary outcomes were associations between patient demographics or clinical characteristics and patient outcomes. Four databases were searched between January 2000 and May 2023. Risk of bias and certainty of the evidence were assessed. Results: Forty-nine studies were included. Based upon low certainty RCT evidence, short-stay programmes may not reduce readmission (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.12–7.43); blood transfusion requirements (OR 1.75, 95% CI 0.27–11.36); neurovascular injury (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.01–7.92); other complications (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.26–1.53); or stiffness (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.53–2.05). For registry studies, there was no difference in readmission, infection, neurovascular injury, other complications, venous thromboembolism, or wound complications but there were reductions in mortality and dislocations. For interrupted time series studies, there was no difference in readmissions, reoperations, blood loss volume, emergency department visits, infection, mortality, or neurovascular injury; reduced odds of blood transfusion and other complications, but increased odds of periprosthetic fracture. For other observational studies, there was an increased risk of readmission, no difference in blood loss volume, infection, other complications, or wound complications, reduced odds of requiring blood transfusion, reduced mortality, and reduced venous thromboembolism. One study examined an outcome relevant to optimal patient selection; it reported comparable blood loss for short-stay male and female participants (p = 0.814). Conclusions: There is low certainty evidence that short-stay programmes for THR and KR may have non-inferior 90-day safety outcomes. There is little evidence on factors informing optimal patient selection; this remains an important knowledge gap. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Initial stability of uncemented acetabular components in total hip arthroplasty (THA) is important for osseointegration and potentially enhanced by screw fixation. We used Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry data to determine whether screw usage influences uncemented acetabular component survival. Methods: Primary THA with uncemented acetabular components performed for osteoarthritis from 1999 to 2018 was included. Survivorship was calculated using Kaplan-Meier estimates of cumulative percent revision (CPR). Comparisons used Cox proportional hazards method. An instrumental variable analysis adjusted for surgeon preference for screws as a confounding factor was used. Results: Three hundred thirty thousand one hundred ninety-two THAs were included (31.8% with screws, 68.2% without). Two hundred twenty thousand six hundred seven were included in the instrumental variable analysis. Revision rate of acetabular components (all causes) was higher with screws during the first six years (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.45 (95% CI 1.34, 1.57), p < 0.001) and lower thereafter (HR = 0.81 (95% CI 0.67, 0.98), p = 0.027). Revision rate of acetabular components for loosening was higher with screws over the entire study period (HR = 1.73 (95% CI 1.51, 1.98), p < 0.001). Overall THA revision rate was higher with screws during the first six years (HR = 1.20 (95% CI 1.15, 1.26), p < 0.001) but lower thereafter (HR = 0.89 (95% CI 0.81, 0.98), p = 0.020). Revision rate for dislocation was higher with screws over the entire period (HR = 1.16 (95% CI 1.06, 1.26), p < 0.001). Instrumental variable analysis revealed higher revision rates with acetabular screws in the first six years. (HR = 1.18 (95% CI 1.09–1.29), p < 0.001). Conclusion: Screws did not confer a protective effect against acetabular loosening and were not associated with long-term negative consequences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Periprosthetic infection following total knee replacement remains alarmingly frequent, is devastating for patients, and is an increasingly substantial public health burden. While both the prosthetic design elements and type of polyethylene used in total knee replacement can independently affect survivorship of the prosthesis, their influence on the risk of revision for infection is unknown. Therefore, we examined the effects of total knee prosthetic design and type of polyethylene bearing on the long-term revision risk for nonacute infection following total knee replacement by comparing 4 different cohorts: patients who had minimally stabilized total knee prostheses with crosslinked polyethylene (XLPE) bearing surfaces, minimally stabilized total knee prostheses with noncrosslinked polyethylene (NXLPE), posterior stabilized total knee prostheses with XLPE, and posterior stabilized total knee prostheses with NXLPE.Methods: National registry data on revision procedures for surgeon-reported infection following primary total knee replacement for osteoarthritis from September 1999 through December 2015 were obtained for 4 patient cohorts. The cohorts were defined by the total knee prosthetic design and polyethylene type used. Revisions at ≤6 months were censored to reduce confounding bias. Hazard ratios (HRs) were adjusted for age, sex, and antibiotic cement usage.Results: A total of 336,997 primary total knee prostheses were included, 1,651 (0.49%) of which underwent revision for periprosthetic infection. Compared with minimally stabilized total knee prostheses that had XLPE bearing surfaces, the revision risk for infection, adjusted for age, sex, and antibiotic cement usage, was 25% higher for minimally stabilized total knee prostheses with NXLPE bearing surfaces (HR = 1.25 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.07 to 1.45]; p = 0.003), 89% higher for posterior stabilized total knee prostheses with XLPE (HR = 1.89 [95% CI, 1.52 to 2.35]; p < 0.001), and 102% higher for posterior stabilized total knee prostheses with NXLPE (HR = 2.02 [95% CI, 1.72 to 2.37]; p < 0.001). Posterior stabilized total knee prostheses with NXLPE had a 61% higher risk of infection compared with minimally stabilized total knee prostheses with NXLPE (HR = 1.61 [95% CI, 1.43 to 1.83]; p < 0.001). The revision risk for infection for posterior stabilized total knee prostheses with NXLPE was the same as that for posterior stabilized total knee prostheses with XLPE (HR = 1.08 [95% CI, 0.88 to 1.32]; p = 0.481).Conclusions: Minimally stabilized total knee prostheses with NXLPE bearing surfaces and posterior stabilized total knee prostheses, irrespective of bearing type, had a greater long-term revision risk for periprosthetic infection when compared with the revision risk for minimally stabilized total knee prostheses with XLPE bearing surfaces.Level Of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of Levels of Evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Common concerns of patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA) are whether they can continue with certain recreational and sporting activities or even commence new ones after the procedure. The present study was designed to determine preoperative and postoperative activities, the numbers participating and the time to resume these activities.Between 1 and 2 years after TKA, patients who had undergone 144 arthroplasties, were surveyed by postal questionnaire to ascertain how the arthroplasty had affected their recreational and sporting ability. Their preoperative and postoperative activity along with the time to resume was recorded. The Oxford knee score and estimate of physical activity was also collected.Out of the 144 TKA performed, 122 participated in sport and recreational activity preoperatively and 108 participated postoperatively. Patients stated that the surgery had a beneficial effect on their performance of sporting and recreational activities although the number of sporting events decreased. By multiplying individuals by the number of activities they participated in, there were 254 occurrences of sport and recreational activities preoperatively giving a mean for the group of 1.76 sports/patient. Postoperatively this had reduced to 204, giving a mean of 1.41. Three activities showed a significant change for individual patients from pre- to postoperation. Those which showed an increase were exercise walking, where 19 patients (13.2%) who did not walk before surgery took up walking afterwards (P < 0.006) and aqua aerobics, where five took up aqua aerobics postoperatively for the first time (P < 0.025). Golf was the only sport which had a significant fall in participation from pre- to postoperation, with 10 out of 19 golfers giving up (P < 0.025).The present study has shown that patients are adopting lower impact activities to participate in after TKA. The total number of patients performing a sport decreases postoperatively and the total amount of sport played decreases. These data will help to counsel patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Common concerns of patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty are whether they can continue with certain recreational and sporting activities or even commence new ones after the procedure. The present paper describes preoperative and postoperative activities, the numbers participating and the time to resume these activities. Between 1 and 2 years after total hip arthroplasty, 216 patients, who had undergone a total of 235 arthroplasties, were surveyed by postal questionnaire to ascertain how the arthroplasty had affected their recreational and sporting ability. Their preoperative and postoperative activity along with the time to resume was recorded. A general hip score and estimate of physical activity was also collected. The number of patients participating in sport increased from 188 preoperatively to 196 postoperatively. Patients stated that the surgery had a beneficial effect on their performance of sporting activities although the number of sporting events decreased. By multiplying individuals by the number of sports they participated in, there were 434 occurrences of sport preoperatively giving a mean for the group of 1.9 sports per patient. Postoperatively this had reduced to 382, giving a mean of 1.7. Five sports showed a significant change for individual patients from pre to postoperative. Those which showed an increase were exercise walking, where 38 patients (16.8%) who did not walk before surgery took up walking afterwards ( AP < 0.0001) and aqua aerobics, where 15 took up this activity postoperatively for the first time ( P = 0.002). There were three sports which decreased significantly from pre to postoperation. They were, golf where 13 out of 39 ( P = 0.005), tennis 13 out of 14 ( P = 0.01) and jogging where six out of seven ( P = 0.01) patients stopped participating. This study has shown that patients are adopting lower impact activities to participate in after total hip arthroplasty. The total number of patients performing a sport increases postoperatively but the total amount of sport played decreases. These data will help to counsel patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The medial pivot TKA design was introduced in the 1990s. These are fixed-bearing, medial-conforming implants with virtually no translation in the medial part of the knee, in contrast to the flat lateral part of the insert allowing for translation similar to the native knee during flexion and extension. Most primary TKAs performed in Norway and Australia are cruciate-retaining. All of the medial pivot implants in our study are cruciate-sacrificing but without a post-cam mechanism. The medial pivot implant design was developed to more closely mimic native knee motion, in the hope of improving function, and not primarily as a more constrained knee for difficult cases. In the past 10 to 12 years, a second-generation medial-pivot design has emerged, but there are no larger registry studies on the survival of these implants. Both cruciate-retaining and medial pivot designs are reported in the Australian and Norwegian registries, allowing for large-scale, comparative survivorship studies.Questions/purposes: (1) Is there any difference in survival between the medial pivot design and the three most commonly used cruciate-retaining TKA designs? (2) Is there any difference in survival among the different medial pivot implant designs? (3) What are the main indications for revision of medial pivot TKAs?Methods: Registry data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry and Norwegian Arthroplasty Register from 2005 until the end of 2017 were used to compare the five different brands of medial pivot TKA designs (total primary TKAs assessed: 6310). In Australia, the study group of medial pivot implants represented 9% (6012 of 72,477) of the total number of cemented/hybrid TKAs without patellar resurfacing; 345 had cementless femoral components. In Norway, the study group represented 1% (298 of 47,820) of the total number of TKAs with cemented tibias without patellar resurfacing; all had cemented femoral components. The control group consisted of the three most commonly used cruciate-retaining TKA designs (n = 70,870; Australia n = 54,554; Norway n = 16,316). All TKAs used a fixed-bearing, cemented tibial component and did not involve patella resurfacing. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was assessed to estimate survivorship. We compared the groups by calculating the hazard ratios (HR) using Cox regression adjusted for age, gender and preoperative diagnosis with 95% CI. To answer our third question, we calculated the percentage of each revision indication from the total number of revisions in each group, and used a Cox regression analysis to compare revision causes and HRs. Analyses were performed separately by each registry. Accounting for competing risks (Fine and Gray) did not alter our findings [].Results: After controlling for potential confounding variables such as gender, age and preoperative diagnosis, we found an increased revision risk for the medial pivot compared with cruciate-retaining TKA designs in Australia (HR 1.4 [95% CI 1.2 to 1.7]; p < 0.001), but not in Norway (HR 1.5 [95% CI 0.9 to 2.4]; p = 0.1). Two brands of the medial pivot design reported to the AOANJRR showed an increased risk of revision compared with cruciate-retaining designs: the Advance® II MP (HR 1.7 [95% CI 1.2 to 2.6]; p = 0.004) and the GMK® Sphere (HR 2.0 [95% CI 1.5 to 2.6]; p < 0.001), whereas the MRK (HR 0.7 [95% CI 0.4 to 1.5]; p = 0.4), the Evolution® MP (HR 1.4 [95% CI 1.0 to 1.9]; p = 0.06) and the SAIPH® (HR 0.9 [95% CI 0.5 to 1.5]; p = 0.7) showed no difference. The most common reasons for revision of medial pivot implants in Australia were infection (27%), pain alone (19%), patellar erosion (13%), loosening/lysis (12%); in Norway the primary indications were loosening/lysis (28%), instability (28%), malalignment (11%) and pain alone (11%).Conclusions: The medial pivot TKA design as a group had a higher revision rate than cruciate-retaining fixed-bearing controls in TKA performed without patellar component resurfacing. By brand, the Advance II MP and the GMK Sphere had inferior survivorship, whereas the MRK, the SAIPH and the Evolution MP had no differences in survivorship compared with cruciate-retaining controls. In Australia, TKAs with the medial pivot design without patella resurfacing had a higher rate of revisions for instability, malalignment, and patella erosion. In Norway, there was an increased risk of revision for lysis and loosening compared with the cruciate-retaining design. Several of these implants had short follow-up in this study. Further registry studies with longer follow up are therefore necessary.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]

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: Despite wide adoption of hydroxyapatite (HA)-coated femoral stems in THA, no studies have found differences in the risk of revision surgery with its use or investigated the interaction of different prosthesis designs with stem coating.Questions/purposes: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the risk of revision in THAs with HA-coated stems compared with non-HA-coated. To achieve this purpose, we asked: (1) What is the difference in risk of revision of THAs with HA-coated femoral stems compared with non-HA-coated using an aggregate analysis? (2) What is the difference in risk of revision of THAs with HA-coated femoral stems compared with non-HA-coated for five prosthesis types that used the same femoral and acetabular component combination but where the femoral stem had both a HA and non-HA coating option?Methods: The Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry analyzed cementless primary THA registered between September 1, 1999, and December 31, 2014. Of the 147,645 cases that fit our selection criteria, 81.1% (N = 119,673) had HA-coated stems. Overall (that is, all procedures with any prostheses in the registry) and five prosthesis designs where both an HA-coated stem and non-HA-coated stem exist (Zimmer's VerSys®/Trilogy® [N = 3924], Biomet's Mallory-Head®/Mallory-Head [N = 2538], Smith & Nephew's SL-Plus/EP Fit-Plus [N = 2028], Biomet's Taperloc®/Exceed [N = 1668], and Biomet's Taperloc/Mallory-Head [N = 1240]) were evaluated. Revision surgery was the outcome of interest. Survival analyses were conducted and hazard ratios (HRs) were adjusted for age, sex, bearing surface, femoral head size, and acetabular component HA coating.Results: In the overall cohort, HA stems had a lower any-cause revision risk after 6 months (HR, 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72-0.95; p = 0.007). However, the risk of revision varied when we evaluated the effect of HA on revision for specific prothesis combinations that had both HA and non-HA options for the femoral stem. VerSys/Trilogy, Mallory-Head/Mallory-Head, Taperloc/Exceed, and Taperloc/Mallory-Head did not have a lower risk of any-cause revision with HA-coated stems compared with non-HA-coated. Only the SL-Plus/EP Fit-Plus subgroup showed a lower risk of revision for loosening (HR, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.06-0.44 between 0 and 7 years; p < 0.001) with HA- compared with non-HA-coated stems, but this was observed after an early (< 6 months) higher risk of revision for any reason (HR, 2.88; 95% CI, 1.15-7.21; p = 0.024).Conclusions: Overall, HA coating of femoral stems was found to be associated with a 17% lower risk of revision for any reason. However, the lower risk of revision associated with HA was not consistent for all prosthesis designs where both HA- and non-HA-coated femoral stem versions were available. Some HA-coated stems have higher revision rates compared with their non-HA-coated versions. Our findings suggest that the effect of HA coating on revision risk varies depending on prosthesis design.Level Of Evidence: Level II, 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]

We studied a prospective cohort of patients in whom gluteal tendon reconstruction was undertaken in association with hip arthroplasty. Over the course of 10 years, 24 patients had gluteal tendon reconstruction performed either at the time of hip arthroplasty or post-operatively, using the Ligament Augment and Reconstruction System (LARS), suture anchors, direct suture to bone, or a combination of these techniques. All patients were assessed clinically and by patient-centred outcome measures, including the hip disability and osteoarthritis score (HOOS). The mean post-operative HOOS was significantly better than pre-operative score (p < 0.05). The mean post operative score in the domains of symptoms, pain, activities of daily living (ADL), sports and quality of life (QoL) was 72 (SD 12.8), 73 (SD 15.9), 71 (SD 11.8), 54 (SD 22.6) and 57 (SD 21.76) respectively. There were two failures of gluteal tendon reconstruction which required revision using LARS. One patient died of an unrelated cause. Surgical intervention should be considered in gluteal tendinopathy at the time of hip arthroplasty or when symptoms occur following arthroplasty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Medial compartment osteoarthritis is a common disorder that often is treated by unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). Although the Oxford 3 prosthesis is commonly used based on revision rate and cumulative survival, our experience suggests that although there may be adequate implant survival rates, we observed a worrisome and undisclosed reintervention rate of nonrevision procedures.Purpose: We describe the frequency and cause of repeat intervention subsequent to implanting this device.Methods: Between 1998 and 2005, 398 patients underwent UKA using the Oxford 3 prosthesis. The minimum followup was 12 months (mean, 43 months; range, 12-102 months).Results: Forty of the 398 (10%) patients had 55 (13.8%) repeat anesthetics (reintervention). There were 38 nonrevision reinterventions. Revision was performed in 15 patients (3.8%), but two patients had a second revision (17 revisions or 4.3%). We revised the UKA to a second UKA in seven of the 15 cases but two subsequently were rerevised to a TKA; eight were revised directly to a TKA.Conclusions: Although our data confirm the reported revision rates for this prosthesis, we observed a substantial reintervention rate. Most of the reinterventions are minor and are diagnosed frequently and treated arthroscopically. If revision is required, a second UKA may be considered and performed successfully in patients with isolated loosening of one component.Level Of Evidence: Level II, prognostic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]