Caring for patients with periprosthetic femoral fractures across England and Wales in 2021.

Aims: The aim of this study was to describe services available to patients with periprosthetic femoral fracture (PPFF) in England and Wales, with focus on variation between centres and areas for care improvement. Methods: This work used data freely available from the National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD) facilities survey in 2021, which asked 21 questions about the care of patients with PPFFs, and nine relating to clinical decision-making around a hypothetical case. Results: Of 174 centres contributing data to the NHFD, 161 provided full responses and 139 submitted data on PPFF. Lack of resources was cited as the main reason for not submitting data. Surgeon (44.6%) and theatre (29.7%) availability were reported as the primary reasons for surgical delay beyond 36 hours. Less than half had a formal process for a specialist surgeon to operate on PPFF at least every other day. The median number of specialist surgeons at each centre was four (interquartile range (IQR) 3 to 6) for PPFF around both hips and knees. Around one-third of centres reported having one dedicated theatre list per week. The routine discussion of patients with PPFF at local and regional multidisciplinary team meetings was lower than that for all-cause revision arthroplasties. Six centres reported transferring all patients with PPFF around a hip joint to another centre for surgery, and this was an occasional practice for a further 34. The management of the hypothetical clinical scenario was varied, with 75 centres proposing ORIF, 35 suggested revision surgery and 48 proposed a combination of both revision and fixation. Conclusion: There is considerable variation in both the organization of PPFF services England and Wales, and in the approach taken to an individual case. The rising incidence of PPFF and complexity of these patients highlight the need for pathway development. The adoption of networks may reduce variability and improve outcomes for patients with PPFF.

Survival of the Exeter V40 short revision (44/00/125) stem when used in primary total hip arthroplasty.

The Exeter V40 femoral stem is the most implanted stem in the National Joint Registry (NJR) for primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). In 2004, the 44/00/125 stem was released for use in 'cement-in-cement' revision cases. It has, however, been used 'off-label' as a primary stem when patient anatomy requires a smaller stem with a 44 mm offset. We aimed to investigate survival of this implant in comparison to others in the range when used in primary THAs recorded in the NJR. We analyzed 328,737 primary THAs using the Exeter V40 stem, comprising 34.3% of the 958,869 from the start of the NJR to December 2018. Our exposure was the stem, and the outcome was all-cause construct revision. We stratified analyses into four groups: constructs using the 44/00/125 stem, those using the 44/0/150 stem, those including a 35.5/125 stem, and constructs using any other Exeter V40 stem. In all 328,737 THAs using an Exeter V40 stem, the revision estimate was 2.8% (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.7 to 2.8). The 44/00/125 stem was implanted in 2,158 primary THAs, and the ten-year revision estimate was 4.9% (95% CI 3.6 to 6.8). Controlling for age, sex, year of operation, indication, and American Society of Anesthesiologists grade demonstrated an increased overall hazard of revision for constructs using the 44/00/125 stem compared to constructs using other Exeter V40 femoral stems (hazard ratio 1.8 (95% CI 1.4 to 2.3)). Although the revision estimate is within the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence ten-year benchmark, survivorship of constructs using the 44/00/125 stem appears to be lower than the rest of the range. Adjusted analyses will not take into account 'confounding by indication', e.g. patients with complex anatomy who may have a higher risk of revision. Surgeons and patients should be reassured but be aware of the observed increased revision estimate, and only use this stem when other implants are not suitable.

Re-operation rates of arthroscopic management versus arthrotomy in treatment of septic arthritis of native shoulder joint in adults. A systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: Previous studies have reported concern regarding high reoperation rates when septic arthritis of the native shoulder is treated arthroscopically, compared to open arthrotomy. We aimed to compare re-operation rate between the two strategies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The review was registered prospectively at PROSPERO, (CRD42021226518). We searched common databases and references lists (8 February 2021). The inclusion criteria included interventional or observational studies of adult patients with a confirmed diagnosis of native shoulder joint septic arthritis and had either arthroscopy or arthrotomy. The exclusion criteria included patients with periprosthetic or post-surgical infections, patients who had atypical infections, and studies that did not report re-operation rate. Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias (ROBINS-I) was used. RESULTS: Nine studies (retrospective cohort studies) were included that involved 5,643 patients (5,645 shoulders). Mean age ranged from 55.6 to 75.5 years, and follow-up time ranged from 1-41 months. Mean duration of symptoms prior to presentation ranged from 8.3-23.3 days. Metanalysis observed a higher re-operation rate for reinfection at any time point following initial arthroscopy in comparison to arthrotomy, odds ratio 2.61 (95% confidence interval 1.04, 6.56). There was marked heterogeneity (I2 = 78.8%) among studies including surgical techniques and missing data. CONCLUSION: This metanalysis observed a higher reoperation rate in arthroscopy in comparison to arthrotomy for the treatment of native shoulder septic arthritis in adults. The quality of the included evidence is low and the heterogeneity among included studies is marked. Higher quality evidence is still needed that address limitations of previous studies.

Survivorship of the dual-mobility construct in elective primary total hip replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis including registry data.

INTRODUCTION: Dislocation is a common complication associated with total hip replacement (THR). Dual-mobility constructs (DMC-THR) may be used in high-risk patients and have design features that may reduce the risk of dislocation. We aimed to report overall pooled estimates of all-cause construct survival for elective primary DMC-THR. Secondary outcomes included unadjusted dislocation rate, revision for instability, infection and fracture. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and National Joint Registry reports were systematically searched (CRD42020189664). Studies reporting revision (all-cause) survival estimates and confidence intervals by brand and construct including DMC bearings were included. A meta-analysis was performed weighting series by the standard error. RESULTS: Thirty-seven studies reporting 39 case series were identified; nine (10,494 DMC-THR) were included. Fourteen series (23,020 DMC-THR) from five national registries were included. Pooled case series data for all-cause construct survival was 99.7% (95% CI 99.5-100) at 5 years, 95.7% (95% CI 94.9-96.5) at 10 years, 96.1% (95% CI 91.8-100) at 15 years and 77% (95% CI 74.4-82.0) at 20 years. Pooled joint registry data showed an all-cause construct survivorship of 97.8% (95% CI 97.3-98.4) at 5 years and 96.3% (95% CI 95.6-96.9) at 10 years. CONCLUSIONS: Survivorship of DMC-THR in primary THR is acceptable according to the national revision benchmark published by National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE).

How long does an elbow replacement last? A systematic review and meta-analysis of case-series and national registry reports with more than 10 years of follow-up.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: This study aims to determine, for the first time, generalizable data on the longevity and long-term function of elbow replacements. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE and Embase for articles reporting 10-year or greater survival of total elbow replacements (TERs) and distal humeral hemiarthroplasty. Implant survival and patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) data were extracted. National joint replacement registries were also analyzed. We weighted each series and calculated a pooled survival estimate at 10, 15, and 20 years. For PROMs we pooled the standardized mean difference (SMD) at 10 years. FINDINGS: Despite its widespread use, we identified only 9 series reporting all-cause survival of 628 linked TERs and 610 unlinked TERs and no series for distal humeral hemiarthroplasty. The studied population was treated for rheumatoid arthritis in over 90% of cases. The estimated 10-year survival for linked TERs was 92% (95% CI 90-95) and unlinked TERs 84% (CI 81-88). 2 independent registries contributed 32 linked TERs and 530 unlinked TERs. The pooled registry 10-year survival for unlinked TERs was 86% (CI 83-89). Pooled 10-year PROMs from 164 TERs (33 linked and 131 unlinked), revealed a substantial improvement from baseline scores (SMD 2.7 [CI 1.6-3.8]). INTERPRETATION: Over 80% of all elbow replacements and over 90% of linked elbow replacements can last more than 10 years with sustained patient-reported benefits. This information is long overdue and will be particularly useful to patients as well as healthcare providers.

What is the patient experience following revision knee replacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the medium term patient reported outcomes.

AIMS: Revision knee replacement is an increasingly common procedure, however, information on patient-focused outcomes is limited. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the medium-term patient reported outcomes following a revision knee replacement. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of MEDLINE and EMBASE (from inception to 1st March 2021) for articles reporting five year or greater patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) following revision knee replacement. A meta-analysis of PROMs data was undertaken using the Standardised Mean Difference (SMD). Quality of methodology was assessed using Wylde's non-summative four-point system. The study was registered with PROPSERO (CRD42021199289). RESULTS: A total of 23 studies met the inclusion criteria containing 2414 patients at a mean minimum follow-up of 74 months (60-122). The reporting of PROMs were poorly standardised with several PROMs being used. The most commonly reported patient reported outcome was the Knee Society Score reported in 65% of studies (15/23). A meta-analysis of 629 eligible patients undergoing revision knee replacement revealed a significant improvement in pre-operative state with a SMD 2·05 95% CI 0.87, 3.23. CONCLUSION: This systematic review has found a significant and sustained improvement in patient-reported outcomes following a revision knee arthroplasty beyond five years. We found a variation in the usage and administration of PROMs which hinders a clear synthesis of results. Furthermore, the PROMs have not been robustly tested for validity in the context of a revision knee replacement.

How long does a shoulder replacement last? A systematic review and meta-analysis of case series and national registry reports with more than 10 years of follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Shoulder replacement is an increasingly common treatment for end-stage degenerative shoulder conditions. Some shoulder replacements are unsuccessful and additional operations might be required. It is important for patients and clinicians to know how long shoulder replacements last and how effectively they reduce pain and improve function. This study aims to determine the longevity and long-term efficacy of shoulder replacements. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE and Embase from their inception to Sept 24, 2019, for case series and registry data reporting 10-year or longer survival of total shoulder replacements, humeral hemiarthroplasties, and reverse total shoulder replacements of a specific brand of implant. Survival, implant, and patient-reported outcome measures data were extracted. The primary outcome was implant survival. We reviewed and analysed national joint replacement registries separately. We weighted each series by SE and calculated a pooled survival estimate at years 10, 15, and 20. For patient-reported outcome measures we pooled the standardised mean difference at 10 years. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42019140221. FINDINGS: 927 non-duplicate articles were identified by our search, nine articles (reporting ten series) were eligible for analysis of survival and six articles were eligible for analysis of patient reported outcomes. The ten series reported all-cause survival of 529 total shoulder replacements and 364 humeral hemiarthroplasties; no series for reverse total shoulder replacement met the inclusion criteria. The estimated 10-year survival for total shoulder replacement was 94·6% (95% CI 93·6-97·6) and humeral hemiarthroplasties was 90·4% (87·0-94·0). A single registry contributed 7651 total shoulder replacements, 1395 humeral hemiarthroplasties, and 7953 reverse total shoulder replacements. The pooled registry 10-year survival was 92·0% (95% CI 91·0-93·0) for total shoulder replacement, 85·5% (83·3-87·7) for humeral hemiarthroplasties, and 94·4% (93·4-95·7) for patients with osteoarthritis who had reverse total shoulder replacement and 93·6% (91·1-95·8) for patients with rotator cuff arthropathy who had reverse total shoulder replacement. Pooled 10-year patient-reported outcome measures showed a substantial improvement from baseline scores, with a standardised mean difference of 2·13 (95% CI 1·93-2·34). INTERPRETATION: Our data show that approximately 90% of shoulder replacements last for longer than 10 years and patient-reported benefits are sustained. Our findings will be of use to surgeons and patients in the informed consent process and to health-care providers for resource planning. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research, the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and Isle of Man, and the Royal College of Surgeons of England.

How long does a hip replacement last? A systematic review and meta-analysis of case series and national registry reports with more than 15 years of follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Total hip replacement is a common and highly effective operation. All hip replacements would eventually fail if in situ long enough and it is important that patients understand when this might happen. We aimed to answer the question: how long does a hip replacement last? METHODS: We did a systematic review and meta-analysis with a search of MEDLINE and Embase from the start of records to Sept 12, 2017. We included articles reporting 15-year survival of primary, conventional total hip replacement constructs in patients with osteoarthritis. We extracted survival and implant data and used all-cause construct survival as the primary outcome. We also reviewed reports of national joint replacement registries, and extracted data for a separate analysis. In the meta-analyses, we weighted each series and calculated a pooled survival estimate for each source of data. This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018085642). FINDINGS: We identified 140 eligible articles reporting 150 series, and included 44 of these series (13 212 total hip placements). National joint replacement registries from Australia and Finland provided data for 92 series (215 676 total hip replacements). The 25-year pooled survival of hip replacements from case series was 77·6% (95% CI 76·0-79·2) and from joint replacement registries was 57·9% (95% CI 57·1-58·7). INTERPRETATION: Assuming that estimates from national registries are less likely to be biased, patients and surgeons can expect a hip replacement to last 25 years in around 58% of patients. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research, National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Isle of Man, and The Royal College of Surgeons of England.

How long does a knee replacement last? A systematic review and meta-analysis of case series and national registry reports with more than 15 years of follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Knee replacements are the mainstay of treatment for end-stage osteoarthritis and are effective. Given time, all knee replacements will fail and knowing when this failure might happen is important. We aimed to establish how long a knee replacement lasts. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE and Embase for case series and cohort studies published from database inception until July 21, 2018. Articles reporting 15 year or greater survival of primary total knee replacement (TKR), unicondylar knee replacement (UKR), and patellofemoral replacements in patients with osteoarthritis were included. Articles that reviewed specifically complex primary surgeries or revisions were excluded. Survival and implant data were extracted, with all-cause survival of the knee replacement construct being the primary outcome. We also reviewed national joint replacement registry reports and extracted the data to be analysed separately. In the meta-analysis, we weighted each series and calculated a pooled survival estimate for each data source at 15 years, 20 years, and 25 years, using a fixed-effects model. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42018105188. FINDINGS: From 4363 references found by our initial search, we identified 33 case series in 30 eligible articles, which reported all-cause survival for 6490 TKRs (26 case series) and 742 UKRs (seven case series). No case series reporting on patellofemoral replacements met our inclusion criteria, and no case series reported 25 year survival for TKR. The estimated 25 year survival for UKR (based on one case series) was 72·0% (95% CI 58·0-95·0). Registries contributed 299 291 TKRs (47 series) and 7714 UKRs (five series). The pooled registry 25 year survival of TKRs (14 registries) was 82·3% (95% CI 81·3-83·2) and of UKRs (four registries) was 69·8% (67·6-72·1). INTERPRETATION: Our pooled registry data, which we believe to be more accurate than the case series data, shows that approximately 82% of TKRs last 25 years and 70% of UKRs last 25 years. These findings will be of use to patients and health-care providers; further information is required to predict exactly how long specific knee replacements will last. FUNDING: The National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and Isle of Man and the Royal College of Surgeons of England.

Are competing risks models appropriate to describe implant failure?

Background and purpose - The use of competing risks models is widely advocated in the arthroplasty literature due to a perceived bias in comparison of simple Kaplan-Meier estimates. Proponents of competing risk models in the arthroplasty literature appear to be unaware of the subtle but important differences in interpretation of net and crude failure estimated by competing risk and Kaplan-Meier methods respectively. Methods - Using a simple simulation we illustrate the differences between competing risks and Kaplan-Meier methods. Results - Competing risk and Kaplan-Meier methods estimate different survival quantities, i.e., crude and net failure respectively. Estimates of crude failure estimated using competing risk methods will be less than net failure as estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods. Interpretation - Kaplan-Meier methods are appropriate for describing implant failure, whereas crude survival estimated using competing risk methods estimates the risk of surgical revision as it depends on both implant failure and mortality. Both competing risk models and Kaplan-Meier methods are useful in arthroplasty, and both provide unbiased estimates of crude and net failure in the absence of any confounding or selection respectively. Surgeons and researchers should carefully consider whether the use of competing risks is always justified. Lower estimates of failure from competing risk models may be misleading to surgeons who are attempting to select the best implants with the lowest failure rates for their patients.

Delaying the onset of treadmill exercise following peripheral nerve injury has different effects on axon regeneration and motoneuron synaptic plasticity.

Transection of a peripheral nerve results in withdrawal of synapses from motoneurons. Some of the withdrawn synapses are restored spontaneously, but those containing the vesicular glutamate transporter 1 (VGLUT1), and arising mainly from primary afferent neurons, are withdrawn permanently. If animals are exercised immediately after nerve injury, regeneration of the damaged axons is enhanced and no withdrawal of synapses from injured motoneurons can be detected. We investigated whether delaying the onset of exercise until after synapse withdrawal had occurred would yield similar results. In Lewis rats, the right sciatic nerve was cut and repaired. Reinnervation of the soleus muscle was monitored until a direct muscle (M) response was observed to stimulation of the tibial nerve. At that time, rats began 2 wk of daily treadmill exercise using an interval training protocol. Both M responses and electrically-evoked H reflexes were monitored weekly for an additional seven wk. Contacts made by structures containing VGLUT1 or glutamic acid decarboxylase (GAD67) with motoneurons were studied from confocal images of retrogradely labeled cells. Timing of full muscle reinnervation was similar in both delayed and immediately exercised rats. H reflex amplitude in delayed exercised rats was only half that found in immediately exercised animals. Unlike immediately exercised animals, motoneuron contacts containing VGLUT1 in delayed exercised rats were reduced significantly, relative to intact rats. The therapeutic window for application of exercise as a treatment to promote restoration of synaptic inputs onto motoneurons following peripheral nerve injury is different from that for promoting axon regeneration in the periphery.