The Use of Computer Navigation in Total Hip Arthroplasty Is Associated with a Reduced Rate of Revision for Dislocation: A Study of 6,912 Navigated THA Procedures from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry.

BACKGROUND: The use of computer navigation has been shown to produce more accurate cup positioning when compared with non-navigated total hip arthroplasty (THA), but so far there is only limited evidence to show its effect on clinical outcomes. The present study analyzed data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry to assess the impact of computer navigation on the rates of all-cause revision and revision for dislocation following THA. METHODS: Data for all non-navigated and navigated primary THAs performed for osteoarthritis in Australia from January 1, 2009, to December 31, 2019, were examined to assess the rate of revision. We analyzed the effects of navigation on rate, reason, and type of revision. Hazard ratios (HRs) from Cox proportional hazard models, adjusted for age, sex, and head size, were utilized. Because of known prosthesis-specific differences in outcomes, we performed a further analysis of the 5 acetabular and femoral component combinations most commonly used with navigation. RESULTS: Computer navigation was utilized in 6,912 primary THAs for osteoarthritis, with the use of navigation increasing from 1.9% in 2009 to 4.4% of all primary THAs performed in 2019. There was no difference in the rate of all-cause revision between navigated and non-navigated THAs looking at the entire group. There was a lower rate of revision for dislocation in the navigation THA cohort. The cumulative percent revision for dislocation at 10 years was 0.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.2% to 0.6%) for navigated compared with 0.8% (95% CI, 0.8% to 0.9%) for non-navigated THAs (HR adjusted for age, sex, and head size, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.29 to 0.74; p = 0.002). In the 5 component combinations most commonly used with navigation, the rate of all-cause revision was significantly lower when these components were navigated compared with non-navigated. The cumulative percent revision at 10 years for these 5 prostheses combined was 2.4% (95% CI, 1.6% to 3.4%) for navigated compared with 4.2% (95% CI, 4.0% to 4.5%) for non-navigated THAs (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.86; p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that the use of computer navigation was associated with a reduced rate of revision for dislocation following THA. Furthermore, in the component combinations most commonly used with navigation there was also a reduction in the rate of all-cause revision. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Is Cemented or Cementless Femoral Stem Fixation More Durable in Patients Older Than 75 Years of Age? A Comparison of the Best-performing Stems.

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

What Is the Long-term Survival for Primary THA With Small-head Metal-on-metal Bearings?

BACKGROUND: Large-head metal-on-metal (MoM) bearing hip replacements have been shown to have a much higher rate of revision than other bearing surfaces. However, small-head (≤ 32 mm) MoM bearing surfaces have been in use for many years with several reports of satisfactory mid- to long-term survivorship. It is unclear whether the long-term survival of small-head MoM devices will continue to be satisfactory or whether the same concerns seen with the large-head MoM devices will ultimately become more prevalent. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We analyzed a large national registry to ask: (1) What is the 15-year Kaplan-Meier survivorship of primary conventional THA using small-head (≤ 32 mm) MoM bearing surfaces compared with large-head MoM bearing surfaces in primary THA? (2) Is there an increased rate of revision for adverse reaction to metal debris (ARMD) in this group of patients over time? METHODS: The Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry longitudinally maintains data on all primary and revision joint arthroplasties with nearly 100% capture. We analyzed all conventional primary THAs performed from Registry inception in September 1999 until December 31, 2015, in patients with a diagnosis of osteoarthritis and using MoM bearing surfaces ≤ 32 mm in diameter, defined as small-head MoM. The study group included 4838 primary THA with ≤ 32-mm MoM bearing surfaces. There were 2506 (51.8%) male patients and the median age of patients undergoing THA with a small-head MoM bearing surface was 64 years (range, 20-92 years of age). The outcome measure was the cumulative percent revision defined as the time to first revision using Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship at 15 years; reasons for revision and type of revision were also examined. We specifically investigated whether there was an increased risk of revision for ARMD in this MoM group compared with all other bearing surfaces. We compared these results with large-head MoM THAs (femoral head size > 32 mm). RESULTS: The cumulative percent revision for small-head MoM designs at 15 years was 8.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.3-9.9). The cumulative percent revision for large-head MoM at 14 years was 27.4% (95% CI, 24.8-30.2). Prostheses with a large-head MoM articulation have a higher rate of revision than small-head MoM bearing surfaces (hazard ratio after 6 years, 5.14; 95% CI, 4.1-6.5; p < 0.001). Over time, there was a gradual increase in the diagnosis of ARMD for small-head MoM and the cumulative incidence of revision for ARMD was 0.8% at 15 years. CONCLUSIONS: Despite survival that is substantially greater than that of large-head MoM THAs, there has been a marked decrease in the use of small-head MoM designs in our registry. Although the reasons for this are likely multifactorial, the increasing incidence of revisions for ARMD among small-head MoM THAs is concerning. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Factors correlating with failure to control intraocular pressure in primary angle-closure glaucoma eyes with coexisting cataract treated by phacoemulsification or combined phacotrabeculectomy.

PURPOSE: To identify clinical factors correlating with failure to control intraocular pressure (IOP) in primary angle-closure glaucoma (PACG) eyes with cataract after phacoemulsification or phacotrabeculectomy. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of two prospective randomized controlled clinical trials. METHODS: Primary angle-closure glaucoma eyes with cataract received phacoemulsification or phacotrabeculectomy. Failure was defined as having IOP of 21mm Hg or greater, or requiring glaucoma drugs to maintain an IOP of less than 21 mm Hg, or having had additional IOP-lowering surgery. Factors correlating with failure at 24 months after surgery were identified using logistic regression model. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-three PACG eyes with cataract and receiving phacoemulsification (n = 62) and phacotrabeculectomy (n = 61) were analyzed. With univariate analysis, factors associated with failure included a higher preoperative IOP, a higher preoperative requirement for glaucoma drugs, absence of plateau iris configuration, and phacoemulsification alone. With multivariate analysis, factors associated with failure included a higher preoperative IOP [odds ratio (OR), 1.732 per increase in IOP of 5 mm Hg], a higher preoperative requirement for glaucoma drugs (OR, 1.913), and performance of phacoemulsification alone (OR, 10.24). CONCLUSIONS: In PACG eyes with cataract, higher preoperative IOP and increased requirement for glaucoma drugs correlate with failure to control IOP after phacoemulsification or phacotrabeculectomy. Phacotrabeculectomy is more likely than phacoemulsification to achieve IOP control.