Lower Revision Rates and Improved Stability With a Monoblock Ceramic Acetabular Cup.

BACKGROUND: Monoblock ceramic cups are designed to accommodate large-diameter femoral heads. This has the potential to offer the advantages of an increased range of motion and enhanced joint stability. These features could benefit younger and high-demand patients in need of total hip arthroplasty. The aim of this study was to assess the survival rate and the reasons for revision of the DeltaMotion cup. METHODS: Data from the AOANJRR were analyzed for all patients who had undergone a primary conventional THA performed between January 1, 2001 and December 31, 2021. Only prostheses with ceramic/ceramic, ceramic/XLPE, metal/XLPE, or CM/XLPE bearing surfaces were included. The primary outcome measure was the cumulative percent revision for all causes. Secondary outcome measures were revision for dislocation/instability, ceramic breakage, or noise. A subanalysis for cup size was also performed. RESULTS: There were 486,946 primary conventional THA procedures undertaken for any reason. Of these, 4,033 used the DeltaMotion cup and 482,913 were modular designs. The DeltaMotion cup had the lowest CPR for all diagnoses compared to the modular bearings at all time points, had a significantly lower revision rate for prosthesis dislocation and no revisions for squeaking compared to other modular bearings. There were 175 ceramic breakages recorded in the modular bearing group and 1 ceramic breakage in the DeltaMotion group. CONCLUSIONS: The DeltaMotion cup had a low rate of all-cause revision, and for dislocation, ceramic breakage, and noise. Although this cup is no longer manufactured, ongoing follow-up of newer monoblock ceramic cups will determine their suitability for younger and more active patients.

Antibiotic utilisation in primary and revision total hip replacement patients: A registry linkage cohort study of 106 253 patients using the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry.

PURPOSE: Infection is a major complication following joint replacement (JR) surgery. However, little data exist regarding antibiotic utilisation following primary JR and how use changes with subsequent revision surgery. This study aimed to examine variation in antibiotic utilisation rates before and after hip replacement surgery in those revised for infection, revised for other reasons and those without revision. METHODS: This retrospective cohort analysis used linked data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry and Australian Government Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Patients were included if undergoing total hip replacement (THR) for osteoarthritis in private hospitals between 2002 and 2017. Three groups were examined: primary THR with no subsequent revision (n = 102 577), primary THR with a subsequent revision for reasons other than periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) (n = 3156) and primary THR with a subsequent revision for PJI (n = 520). Monthly antibiotic utilisation rates and prevalence rate ratios (PRRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated in the 2 years pre- and post-THR. RESULTS: Prior to primary THR antibiotic utilisation was 9%-10%. After primary THR, antibiotic utilisation rates were higher among patients revised for PJI (PRR 1.69, 95% CI 1.60-1.79) compared to non-revised patients, while the utilisation rate was lower in patients revised for reasons other than infection (PRR 0.96, 95% CI 0.93-0.98). For those revised for infection, antibiotic utilisation post-revision surgery was two times higher than those revised for other reasons (PRR 2.16, 95% CI 2.08-2.23). Utilisation of injectable antibiotics including, vancomycin, flucloxacillin and cephazolin was higher in those revised for PJI patients 0-2 weeks following surgery but not in those revised for other reasons compared to the non-revised group. CONCLUSIONS: Ongoing antibiotic utilisation after primary surgery may be an early signal of problems with the THR and should be a prompt for primary care physicians to refer patients to specialists for further appropriate investigations and management.

Obesity is associated with an increased risk of undergoing shoulder arthroplasty in Australia.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to examine the incidence of overweight and obesity in patients undergoing primary total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) for osteoarthritis (OA) in Australia compared to the incidence of obesity in the general population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 2017/18 cohort consisting of 2997 patients from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) who underwent TSA were compared with matched controls from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) National Health Survey from the same time period. The 2 groups were analyzed according to body mass index (BMI) category, sex, and age. RESULTS: According to the 2017/18 National Health Survey, 35.6% of Australian adults were overweight and 31.3% were obese. Of the primary TSA cases performed, 34.9% were overweight and 50.1% were obese. The relative risk of requiring TSA for OA increased with increasing BMI category. Class III obese females, aged 55-64, were 8.6 times more likely to receive a TSA compared to their normal weight counterparts. Males in the same age and BMI category were 2.5 times more likely. Class III obese patients underwent TSA 4 years (female) and 6 years (male) younger than their normal weight counterparts. CONCLUSION: Obesity significantly increases the risk of requiring TSA. The association appears to be particularly strong for younger females.

Perception of Perioperative Risk for Arthroplasty Patients: A Poll of Australian Orthopedic Surgeons.

BACKGROUND: There is growing interest in the perioperative management of patients who have indications for hip and knee arthroplasty in the setting of modifiable risk factors such as morbid obesity, poorly controlled diabetes, and smoking. A recent survey of the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons (AAHKS) found that 95% of respondents address modifiable risk factors prior to surgery. The aim of this study was to poll Australian arthroplasty surgeons regarding their approach to patients who have modifiable risk factors. METHODS: The survey tool used in the AAHKS study was adapted for use in the Australian context and distributed to the membership of the Arthroplasty Society of Australia via SurveyMonkey. There were 77 responses received, representing a response rate of 64%. RESULTS: The majority of respondents were experienced, high volume arthroplasty surgeons. Overall, 91% of respondents restricted access to arthroplasty for patients who have modifiable risk factors. There were 72% restricting access for excessive body mass index, 85% for poor diabetic control, and 46% for smoking. Most respondents made decisions based on personal experience or literature review rather than hospital or departmental pressures. While 49% of surgeons believed that current payment systems did not impair their ability to achieve good outcomes, 58% believed that certain arthroplasty patients would benefit from additional intervention, based on their socioeconomic status. CONCLUSION: Over 90% of surgeons who responded address modifiable risk factors prior to surgery. This finding aligns with the practice patterns of AAHKS members, despite differences in healthcare systems.

What Is the Outcome of the First Revision Procedure of Primary THA for Osteoarthritis? A Study From the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry.

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.

Reduced Revision Rates in Total Shoulder Arthroplasty With Crosslinked Polyethylene: Results From the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry.

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.

Cemented Polished Tapered Stems Have Lower Revision Rates Than Commonly Used Cementless Implant up to 17 Years of Follow-Up: An Analysis of 201,889 Total Hip Replacements From the Australian Orthopedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry.

BACKGROUND: Data assessing femoral stems may be influenced by grouping together matt and polished stems, despite their differing reported survivorship. The aim of this study is to assess the difference in revision rates between commonly used cemented and cementless stems when polished tapered stems are assessed independently of matt stems. METHODS: Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry data from 1999 to 2019 were used to assess difference in revision rates between the 5 most commonly implanted femoral cemented and cementless stems for osteoarthritis. Cemented matt femoral stems, stems using line-to-line cementing techniques and procedures using non-cross-linked polyethylene, large head (>32 mm) metal-on-metal bearing surfaces or exchangeable necks were excluded. Cumulative percent revision was used to help compare survivorship between stems. RESULTS: There were 201,889 total hip replacements meeting the inclusion criteria, of which 50.0% were cemented and 50.0% cementless. Cemented stems had a lower rate of revision at all time points compared to cementless stems. This was most significant during the first 2 weeks (hazard ratio 0.48, 95% confidence interval 0.40-0.58, P < .001) compared to 2 weeks postoperatively and onwards (hazard ratio 0.85, 95% confidence interval 0.81-0.90, P < .001). A subanalysis of head size, bearing type, and surgeon volume further supported the use of a cemented stem. CONCLUSION: Commonly used cemented polished tapered stems have a lower revision rate when compared to commonly used cementless prostheses, and are recommended in all age groups for both low-volume and high-volume surgeons especially when head size 32 mm or smaller is used.

Distal Femoral Replacement for Periprosthetic Fractures After TKA: Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry Review.

BACKGROUND: Distal femoral replacement (DFR) is a potential treatment option following periprosthetic fracture (PPF) of a total knee arthroplasty (TKA). However, there is limited literature regarding implant survivorship and complication rates. The aim of this study was to examine patient demographics and trends in usage, implant survivorship and modes of failure, and patient mortality following DFR for PPF captured by a national joint replacement registry. METHODS: A retrospective registry review was performed using data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR). In total, 306 DFR were performed for PPF of a known primary TKA. Eighty-five percent of patients were female, and the mean age was 76.4 years. Kaplan-Meier estimates of implant and patient survivorship were performed. RESULTS: The number of DFR performed for PPF has doubled over the past five years. The cumulative percent second revision rate at six years was 12%. The most common indications for revision were infection (37%) and aseptic loosening (33%). Patient survivorship after DFR was 97% and 83% at five and ten years, respectively. CONCLUSION: A national registry review has identified the increasing prevalence of DFR for PPF after primary TKA and demonstrated implant survivorship of 88% at midterm follow-up. Surgeons may consider DFR as an acceptable and durable treatment option. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III - Case Series.

THA for a Fractured Femoral Neck: Comparing the Revision and Dislocation Rates of Standard-head, Large-head, Dual-mobility, and Constrained Liners.

BACKGROUND: THA is a reasonable surgical option for some patients with fragility fractures of the femoral neck, but it has the risk of prosthesis dislocation. The prosthesis combination that reduces the risk of dislocation and the rate of revision surgery is not known. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: In patients receiving primary THA for a femoral neck fracture, does (1) the rate of all-cause revision or (2) the reason for revision and rate of revision for dislocation differ among THA with a standard head size, large head size, dual mobility (DM), or constrained liner? (3) Is there a difference in the revision risk when patients are stratified by age at the time of surgery? METHODS: Data were analyzed for 16,692 THAs performed to treat fractures of the femoral neck reported in the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) from January 2008 to December 2018, as this included the first use of DM prostheses. The AOANJRR includes information on more than 98% of arthroplasty procedures performed in Australia. Most patients were female (72%) and the mean age was 74 years ± 11. There were 8582 standard-head prostheses, 5820 large-head prostheses, 1778 DM prostheses, and 512 constrained prostheses identified. The cumulative percent revision (CPR) was determined for all causes as well as CPR for dislocation. The time to the first revision was described using Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship, with right censoring for death or closure of the database at the time of analysis. The unadjusted CPR was estimated each year of the first 10 years for standard heads, 10 years for large heads, 8 years for constrained liners, and 7 years for DM prostheses, with 95% confidence intervals using unadjusted pointwise Greenwood estimates. The results were adjusted for age, sex, femoral fixation, and head size where appropriate and were considered by age groups < 70 and ≥ 70 years. RESULTS: When adjusted for age, sex, femoral fixation and head size, there was no difference in the rate of all-cause revision at 7 years for any of the four groups. There was no difference in the rate of all-cause revision when patients were stratified by < 70 or ≥ 70 years of age. Dislocation was the most common reason for revision (32%). When analyzing revision for dislocation alone, large-head THA had a lower rate of revision for dislocation compared with standard head (HR 0.6 [95% CI 0.4 to 0.8]; p < 0.001) and DM prostheses had a lower rate of revision for dislocation than standard head for the first 3 months (HR 0.3 [95% CI 0.1 to 0.7]; p < 0.004) but not after this time point. CONCLUSION: The Australian registry shows that there is no difference in the rate of all-cause revision for standard-head, large-head, DM prostheses or constrained liner THA after femoral neck fractures for all patients or for patients stratified into younger than 70 years and at least 70 years of age groups. Dislocation is the most common cause of revision. Large-head prostheses are associated with a lower revision risk for dislocation and DM prostheses have a lower rate of revision for dislocation than standard heads for the first 3 months only. Surgeons treating a femoral neck fracture with THA might consider a large head size if the diameter of the acetabulum will allow it and a DM prosthesis if a large head size is not possible. The age, life expectancy and level of function of patients with femoral neck fractures minimizes the potential long-term consequences of these prostheses. The lack of significant differences in survival between most prosthesis combinations means surgeons should continue to look for factors beyond head size and prosthesis to minimize dislocation and revision surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Does a Prescription-based Comorbidity Index Correlate with the American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Score and Mortality After Joint Arthroplasty? A Registry Study.

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.

Stainless Steel Femoral Heads Reduce Rate of Revision When Compared to Ion-Implanted Chromium-Cobalt Heads With a Single Cemented Femoral Design: An Analysis of 40,468 Total Hip Replacements From the Australian Orthopedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry.

BACKGROUND: In order to reduce the incidence of total hip joint replacement revision for wear, multiple advanced materials and alloys targeting hip replacement tribology have been introduced. Ion implantation of chromium-cobalt heads is thought to reduce wear due to increased surface hardness and lower friction. These advances in technology result in additional manufacturing costs. However, it is unclear whether these attributes result in a decreased rate of revision for wear and when used with modern highly crosslinked polyethylene (XLPE). The aim of this study is to compare the survivorship of stainless steel and ion-implanted chromium-cobalt femoral heads in order to determine whether ion implantation has a lower risk of revision. METHODS: Data from the Australian Orthopedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry included all stainless steel and low-friction ion-treated (LFIT) femoral heads used in conjunction with a primary Exeter/Trident hip replacement combination and XLPE liners performed for osteoarthritis. Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship were used to describe the time to first revision. Hazard ratios (HRs) from Cox proportional hazard models, with adjustment for age and gender, were used to compare revision rates between the 2 groups. RESULTS: There were 40,468 total hip replacements that met the inclusion criteria. Stainless steel heads had a lower revision rate compared to LFIT chromium-cobalt heads (HR 0.87, 95% confidence interval 0.76-1.00, P = .048). The difference in the rate of revision was even greater when 32-mm heads were used (HR 0.72, 95% confidence interval 0.58-0.89, P = .002). There was no difference in revision for loosening between head alloys or when stratified by age. CONCLUSION: Given the increased costs associated with LFIT implants and the lower rate of revision for stainless steel heads, we recommend the use of a stainless steel heads when using an Exeter/Trident hybrid hip with an XLPE liner.

Is the Survivorship of Birmingham Hip Resurfacing Better Than Selected Conventional Hip Arthroplasties in Men Younger Than 65 Years of Age? A Study from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry.

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.

Does Knee Prosthesis Survivorship Improve When Implant Designs Change? Findings from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry.

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.

One-Surgeon vs Two-Surgeon Single-Anesthetic Bilateral Total Knee Arthroplasty: Revision and Mortality Rates From the Australian Orthopedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry.

BACKGROUND: Outcomes following 1-surgeon single-anesthetic sequential bilateral total knee arthroplasty (seq-BTKA) compared to 2-surgeon single-anesthetic simultaneous bilateral total knee arthroplasty (sim-BTKA) are largely unknown. The current study compared revision rates and all-cause mortality following seq-BTKA vs sim-BTKA using data from the Australian Orthopedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. METHODS: Seq-BTKA and sim-BTKA procedures recorded within the registry between September 1, 1999 and December 31, 2018 were analyzed for subsequent revision and patient mortality. Cumulative percent revision and cumulative percent survival were determined using the Kaplan-Meier method. Revision and mortality rates for sim-BTKA and seq-BTKA were compared using Cox proportional hazards models, adjusting for age and gender. RESULTS: Included in the analysis were 27,480 seq-BTKAs and 471 sim-BTKAs. There was no difference in the cumulative percent revision between the 2 groups (hazard ratio 1.23, 95% confidence interval 0.82-1.85). Cumulative percent patient survival was not significantly different between the 2 groups (hazard ratio 1.20, 95% confidence interval 0.93-1.54). CONCLUSION: Revision rates and mortality were similar for seq-BTKA and sim-BTKA. Investigation of additional outcomes such as complications not requiring revision, pain, function, and cost is required to comprehensively understand the relative merits of each procedure.

The Effect of Size for a Hydroxyapatite-Coated Cementless Implant on Component Revision in Total Hip Arthroplasty: An Analysis of 41,265 Stems.

BACKGROUND: The cementless Corail is one of the most commonly used stems in total hip arthroplasty (THA). The aim of this study was to investigate whether there was a difference in revision rate for smaller stems. METHODS: All primary THA procedures recorded by the Australian Joint Replacement Registry from September 1999 to December 2017 performed for osteoarthritis using the Corail stem, a cementless acetabular cup, modern bearing surfaces (ceramic/ceramic, ceramic/cross-linked polyethylene, and metal/cross-linked polyethylene), and 28 mm, 32 mm, and 36 mm head sizes were included. The primary outcome measure was femoral component revision. Data were analyzed and adjusted for age, gender, and head size. Further analysis investigated the effects of surgical approach. RESULTS: There was 41,265 primary THAs recorded. The cumulative percent revision (CPR) at 13 years was 7.7% (5.5, 10.7) for stem sizes 8 and 9 and 3.0% (2.4, 3.8) for sizes 10-20 (P < .001). When adjusted for age and gender, the sizes 8 and 9 collared (hazard ratio [HR]: 6.22 [3.84-10.06], P < .001) and collarless (HR: 3.28 [2.41-4.45], P < .001) had a higher CPR than the collared and collarless size 10-20. The size 8 and 9 stems performed with an anterior approach had the highest CPR (HR: 14.44 [6.21-33.56], P < .001). The main reason for revision of size 8 and 9 femoral stems was loosening (65.2%, compared to 31.5% for 10-20 femoral stems). CONCLUSIONS: Smaller Corail stems have 4 times the rate of revision compared with the larger femoral sizes with loosening being the most common diagnosis. This is most evident when using an anterior approach.

Postmarket surveillance of arthroplasty device components using machine learning methods.

PURPOSE: While joint arthroplasty is generally a safe and effective procedure, there are concerns that some devices are at increased risk of failure. Early identification of total hip arthroplasty devices with increased risk of failure can be challenging because devices consist of multiple components, hundreds of distinct components are currently used in surgery, and any estimated effect needs to address confounding due to device and patient factors. The purpose of this study was to assess the effectiveness of machine learning approaches at identifying recalled components listed by the US Food and Drug Administration using data from a US total joint arthroplasty registry. METHODS: An open cohort study was conducted using data (January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2015) from 74 520 implantations and 348 unique components in the Kaiser Permanente Total Joint Replacement Registry. Exposures of interest were device components used in elective primary total hip arthroplasty. The outcome was time to first revision surgery, defined as exchange, removal, or addition of any component. Machine learning methods included regularized/unregularized Cox models and random survival forest. RESULTS: Among the recalled components detected were ASR acetabular shell/large femoral head, Durom acetabular shell/Metasul large femoral head, and Rejuvenate modular neck stem. The three components not identified were characterized by small numbers of devices recorded in the registry. CONCLUSIONS: The novel approaches to signal detection may improve postmarket surveillance of frequently used arthroplasty devices, which in turn will improve public health.

The Outcome of Cemented Acetabular Components in Total Hip Arthroplasty for Osteoarthritis Defines a Proficiency Threshold: Results of 22,956 Cases From the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry.

BACKGROUND: The declining popularity of cemented acetabular components is incongruous, given the published results of prostheses implanted using contemporary techniques. The outcome of arthroplasty has previously been demonstrated to correlate with surgeon experience and volume of practice. We aim to explore if surgeon volume alters outcomes of cemented acetabular components based on survivorship data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR). METHODS: An observational study was undertaken using a cohort of 22,956 patients with a primary diagnosis of osteoarthritis in the period 2003-2016 in whom cemented acetabular components were implanted. The cohort was stratified by age (greater than or less than 65 years) and annualized surgical volume of ≤10, >10-≤25, and >25 cases. RESULTS: Stratified by age and volume, there was a protective benefit against revision conveyed at volume thresholds of 10 cases per annum and 25 cases per annum for patients ≥65 years of age and <65 years of age, respectively. CONCLUSION: Cemented total hip arthroplasty has excellent survivorship out to 15 years based on AOANJRR data. This survivorship is further improved if surgeons perform a higher volume of cases, with >25 cases conferring the greatest benefit. The AOANJRR data set is used to define best practice; surgeons who choose to utilize cemented acetabular fixation should be encouraged to perform this technique in adequate volumes to minimize revision risk and ensure the preservation of this important surgical skill set.

Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty Revision to TKA: Are Tibial Stems and Augments Associated With Improved Survivorship?

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.

What Is the Risk of Revision Surgery in Hydroxyapatite-coated Femoral Hip Stems? Findings From a Large National Registry.

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.

Polished Cemented Femoral Stems Have a Lower Rate of Revision Than Matt Finished Cemented Stems in Total Hip Arthroplasty: An Analysis of 96,315 Cemented Femoral Stems.

BACKGROUND: Matt and polished femoral stems have been historically grouped together in registry assessment of the outcome of cemented femoral stems in total hip arthroplasty. This is despite differences in the mode of fixation and biomechanics of loading. The aims of this study are to compare the survivorship of polished tapered stems with matt finished cemented stems. METHODS: Data on primary total hip arthroplasty undertaken for a diagnosis of osteoarthritis from September 1999 to December 2014 were included from a National Joint Registry. Revision rates of the 2 different types of femoral components were compared. RESULTS: There were 96,315 cemented femoral stems included, of which 82,972 were polished tapered and 13,343 matt finish. The cumulative percent revision at 14 years of polished stems was 3.6% (3.0-4.2) compared to 4.9% (4.1-5.7) for matt finish stems. Polished tapered stems had a significantly lower revision rate of femoral revision (hazard ratio 0.56, P < .001). This difference is evident in patients aged <75, and becomes apparent in the mid-term and continues to increase with time. Aseptic loosening accounts for 75% of revisions of matt finish stems compared to 20% for polished tapered stems. CONCLUSION: Although both polished and matt finish stems have excellent early to mid-term results, the long-term survivorship of polished stems is significantly better, with aseptic loosening becoming an issue with matt finish stems. In the future reports of cement fixation for femoral stems may benefit from separate analysis of polished and matt finish.