[Unicondylar knee arthroplasties demonstrate a significantly increased risk of aseptic revisions compared with unconstrained and constrained TKA : Analysis of aseptic revisions after unicondylar and primary total knee arthroplasty of the German Arthroplasty Register]. / Unikondyläre Knieendoprothesen zeigen ein signifikant erhöhtes Risiko für aseptische Revisionen im Vergleich zu ungekoppelten und gekoppelten TKA : Eine Analyse von aseptischen Revisionen nach unikondylärer und primärer totaler Knieendoprothetik des Endoprothesenregisters Deutschland (EPRD).

OBJECTIVE: Owing to the ageing population the implantation rate of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) continues to rise. Aseptic revisions in primary TKA are one of the main causes of revision. The aim of the following study was to determine the incidence of and reasons for aseptic revision in constrained and unconstrained TKA and in unicondylar knee arthroplasty (UKA). METHODS: The data collection was carried out with the help of the German Arthroplasty Register (EPRD). The reasons for aseptic revision surgery were worked out using this. The incidence and the comparison of aseptic revisions were analysed with the aid of Kaplan-Meier estimates. A multiple Chi-squared test with the Holm method was used to identify group differences in collateral ligament deficiencies. RESULTS: In total, 300,998 cases of knee arthroplasties were analysed, of which 254,144 (84.4%) were unconstrained TKA, 9993 (3.3%) were constrained TKA and 36,861 (12.3%) were UKA. The rate of aseptic revisions was significantly increased compared with unconstrained and constrained TKA (p < 0.0001). In constrained TKA, a revision rate of 2.0% for aseptic reasons was reported, whereas in unconstrained TKA 1.1% and in UKA 2.7% revision surgeries were identified. After 7 years the rates of aseptic revisions amounted to 3.3% for constrained TKA, 2.8% for unconstrained TKA and 7.8% for UKA. Ligament instability was the most common cause of aseptic revisions and accounted for 13.7% of unconstrained TKA. In constrained TKA ligament instability led to a revision in 2.8% of cases. In UKA, tibial loosening was identified to be the most common cause of revisions at 14.6%, whereas the progression of osteoarthritis was responsible for 7.9% of revisions. Ligament instability was observed in 14.1% of men compared with 15.9% of women in unconstrained TKA and in UKA in 4.6% of cases for both sexes. CONCLUSION: In patients with UKA the rates of aseptic revision are significantly higher than in unconstrained and constrained TKA. Ligament instability was the most common cause of aseptic revision in unconstrained TKA. In UKA, tibial loosening was the most common cause of revision surgery, whereas the progression of osteoarthritis was the second most common cause. Comparable levels of ligament instability were observed in both sexes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:  III, cohort study.

[Low UKA implantation volume, comorbidities, male sex, and implantation of constrained TKA are risk factors for septic revision after knee arthroplasty implantation : A register-based study from the German Arthroplasty Register]. / Geringes UKA-Implantationsvolumen, Komorbiditäten, männliches Geschlecht und die Implantation einer gekoppelten TKA sind Risikofaktoren für septische Revisionen nach Knieprothesenimplantation : Eine registerbasierte Studie aus dem Deutschen Endoprothesenregister (EPRD).

AIM: Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is one of the main causes of revision surgeries after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and unicondylar knee replacement. Patient- and hospital-related risk factors must be evaluated to prevent PJI. This study identifies influencing factors and differences in infection rates between various types of implant. METHODS: The basis for the data is the German Arthroplasty Register (EPRD). Septic revisions were calculated with the aid of Kaplan-Meier estimates, with septic revision surgery defined as the primary endpoint. Patients with constrained and unconstrained TKA or UKA were analysed using the Holm multiple log-rank test and the Cox proportional hazard model. The 300,998 cases of knee arthroplasty analysed included 254,144 (84.4%) unconstrained TKA, 9993 (3.3%) constrained TKA and 36,861 (12.3%) UKA, with a maximum follow-up of 7 years. RESULTS: After 1 year, the PJI rate was 0.5% for UKA and 2.8% for TKA, whereas after 7 years it was 4.5% for UKA and 0.9% for TKA (p < 0.0001). In constrained TKA, the PJI rate was significantly increased compared with unconstrained TKA (p < 0.0001). After 1 year, the PJI rate was 2.0% for constrained TKA and 0.8% for unconstrained TKA, as well as 3.1% and 1.4% respectively after 7 years. Implantation of a constrained TKA (HR = 2.55), male sex (HR = 1.84), an increased Elixhauser Comorbidity Index score (HR = 1.18-1.56) and an implantation volume of less than 25 UKA per year (HR = 2.15) were identified as risk factors for revision surgeries; an Elixhauser Comorbidity Index score of 0 (HR = 0.80) was identified as a preventive factor. CONCLUSIONS: A reduced implantation volume and constrained knee arthroplasty are linked to a higher risk of PJI. Comorbidities (increased Elixhauser Comorbidity Index score), male sex and a low UKA-implantation volume were identified as risk factors for PJI. Patients who fulfil these criteria need specific infection prevention measures. Further analyses are required to investigate the potential influence of prevention and risk factor modification. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

What are the age-related factors linked to aseptic revisions in constrained and unconstrained TKA as well as UKA? A register-based study from the German arthroplasty registry (EPRD).

PURPOSE: The implantation rate of total knee arthroplasties (TKA) is continuously growing. Aseptic problems are a major cause of revision. The aim of the following study was to determinate the incidence of aseptic revisions in primary knee arthroplasty as well as aseptic revision rates and influencing factors according to the patients' age and type of procedure. METHODS: Data collection was performed using the German Arthroplasty Registry. Influencing factors were analyzed according to the patients' age and type of procedure. Risk factors were calculated using multiple Log-rank test with the Holm's method. Incidence and comparison of aseptic revisions according to the patients' age and type of procedure were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier-estimates. Cox regression was applied to calculate the hazard ratio. RESULTS: Overall, 300,998 knee arthroplasties with 254,144 (84.4%) unconstrained TKA, 9,993 (3.3%) constrained TKA and 36,861 (12.3%) unicondylar knee arthroplasties (UKA) were analyzed. Patients younger than 65 years suffered a significantly higher aseptic revision rate than older patients (p < 0.0001). After one year, a revision rate of 1.1% was recorded for patients 65-74 years, 1.6% for patients under 65 years, and 1.3% for patients beyond 74 years. After seven years, patients younger than 65 years sustained in 5.0%, patients 65-74 years in 2.9% and patients beyond 74 years in 2.4% revision. In unconstrained TKA, an increased Elixhauser-score (HR = 1,75; HR = 1,54; HR = 1,7; p < 0,001) was a risk factor regardless the age. A TKA volume of 101-250 regardless the age (HR = 0,66; HR = 0,69; HR = 0,79) and > 250 under 75 years (< 65: HR = 0,72; 65-74: HR = 0,78; p = 0,001) were protective for aseptic revision. In UKA, male gender (HR = 0,81; HR = 0,72; HR = 0,57; p < 0,001), a UKA volume ≥ 51 for patients under 75 years (< 65: HR = 0,62; 65-74: HR = 0,59; p = 0,003) as well as cemented UKA for patients younger than 75 years (< 65: HR = 0,37; 65-74: HR = 0,37; p < 0,001) were detected as preventive factors. CONCLUSION: A significant increased rate of aseptic revisions was reported for patients younger than 65 years compared to older patients. An increased Elixhauser score was a risk factor, whereas male and a high volume of performed UKA or TKA could be identified as preventive factors. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, cohort study.

Periprosthetic Joint Infection After Total Knee Arthroplasty With or Without Antibiotic Bone Cement.

Importance: Despite increased use of antibiotic-loaded bone cement (ALBC) in joint arthroplasty over recent decades, current evidence for prophylactic use of ALBC to reduce risk of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is insufficient. Objective: To compare the rate of revision attributed to PJI following primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) using ALBC vs plain bone cement. Design, Setting, and Participants: This international cohort study used data from 14 national or regional joint arthroplasty registries in Australia, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy, New Zealand, Norway, Romania, Sweden, Switzerland, the Netherlands, the UK, and the US. The study included primary TKAs for osteoarthritis registered from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2020, and followed-up until December 31, 2021. Data analysis was performed from April to September 2023. Exposure: Primary TKA with ALBC vs plain bone cement. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was risk of 1-year revision for PJI. Using a distributed data network analysis method, data were harmonized, and a cumulative revision rate was calculated (1 - Kaplan-Meier), and Cox regression analyses were performed within the 10 registries using both cement types. A meta-analysis was then performed to combine all aggregated data and evaluate the risk of 1-year revision for PJI and all causes. Results: Among 2 168 924 TKAs included, 93% were performed with ALBC. Most TKAs were performed in female patients (59.5%) and patients aged 65 to 74 years (39.9%), fully cemented (92.2%), and in the 2015 to 2020 period (62.5%). All participating registries reported a cumulative 1-year revision rate for PJI of less than 1% following primary TKA with ALBC (range, 0.21%-0.80%) and with plain bone cement (range, 0.23%-0.70%). The meta-analyses based on adjusted Cox regression for 1 917 190 TKAs showed no statistically significant difference at 1 year in risk of revision for PJI (hazard rate ratio, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.89-1.52) or for all causes (hazard rate ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.89-1.40) among TKAs performed with ALBC vs plain bone cement. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, the risk of revision for PJI was similar between ALBC and plain bone cement following primary TKA. Any additional costs of ALBC and its relative value in reducing revision risk should be considered in the context of the overall health care delivery system.

Aseptic midterm survival rates between different cemented tibial stem designs in hinged total knee arthroplasty: a 6-year evaluation from the German Arthroplasty Registry.

INTRODUCTION: The rate of revision TKA and thus the use of hinged implants (HI) steadily rises. Aseptic loosening lies on the top of the failure patterns. However, no evidence exists until now based on national scale high-caseloads that analyzes the impact of cemented HI stem-design on aseptic survival rates. METHODS: Data on aseptic HI-revisions with full-cemented tibia-stems were conducted from the German Arthroplasty Registry. Cases were divided in primary HI (PHI) and HI used in revision operations (RHI). Endpoint was a new revision following either a PHI or an RHI. The impact of stem conicity (conical vs. cylindrical), diameter (≤ 13 mm vs. > 13 mm), length (≤ 90 mm vs. > 90 mm) and offset on the 6-Year-Cumulative-Aseptic-Revision-Rate (6Y-CARR) was estimated via Kaplan-Meier curve and compared between groups via Log-Rank-Tests. RESULTS: 3953 PHI and 2032 RHI fulfilled inclusion-criteria. Stem conicity had no impact on 6Y-CARR (p = 0.08 and p = 0.8). Diameter > 13 mm hat an impact on PHI (p = 0.05) with lower 6Y-CARR but not on RHI (p = 0.2). Length > 90 mm showed significantly worst 6Y-CARR in PHI (p = 0.0001) but not in RHI (p = 0.3). Offset-stems showed significantly better 6Y-CARR in PHI (p = 0.04), but not in RHI (p = 0.7). CONCLUSION: There was no significant impact of the cemented tibia-stem conicity on 6Y-CARR, neither in PHI nor in RHI. The effect of length, diameter and offset on the 6Y-CARR observed in the PHI, was not detectable in the more complex RHI-cases reflecting its limited clinical relevance by itself in more multifactorial backgrounds. Therefore, results must be interpreted with caution due to considerable system-effects and different utilization-scenarios.

Low implantation volume, comorbidities, male sex and implantation of constrained TKA identified as risk factors for septic revision in knee arthroplasty: A register-based study from the German Arthroplasty Registry.

PURPOSE: Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a major cause of revision surgery after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and unicondylar knee arthroplasty (UKA). Patient- and hospital-related risk factors need to be assessed to prevent PJI. This study identifies influential factors and differences in infection rates between different implant types. METHODS: Data were obtained from the German Arthroplasty Registry. Septic revisions were calculated using Kaplan-Meier estimates with septic revision surgery as the primary endpoint. Patients with constrained and unconstrained TKA or UKA were analysed using Holm's multiple log-rank test and Cox's proportional hazards ratio. The 300,998 cases of knee arthroplasty analysed included 254,144 (84.4%) unconstrained TKA, 9993 (3.3%) constrained TKA and 36,861 (12.3%) UKA with a maximum follow-up of 7 years. RESULTS: At 1 year, the PJI rate was 0.5% for UKA and 2.8% for TKA, whereas at 7 years, the PJI rate was 4.5% for UKA and 0.9% for TKA (p < 0.0001). The PJI rate significantly increased for constrained TKA compared to unconstrained TKA (p < 0.0001). The PJI rate was 2.0% for constrained TKA and 0.8% for unconstrained TKA at 1 year and 3.1% and 1.4% at 7 years. Implantation of a constrained TKA (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.55), male sex (HR = 1.84), increased Elixhauser score (HR = 1.18-1.56) and implant volume of less than 25 UKA per year (HR = 2.15) were identified as risk factors for revision surgery; an Elixhauser score of 0 (HR = 0.80) was found to be a preventive factor. CONCLUSIONS: Reduced implant volume and constrained knee arthroplasty are associated with a higher risk of PJI. Comorbidities (elevated Elixhauser score), male sex and low UKA implant volume have been identified as risk factors for PJI. Patients who meet these criteria require specific measures to prevent infection. Further research is required on the potential impact of prevention and risk factor modification. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Unicondylar knee arthroplasty demonstrating a significant increased risk for aseptic revisions compared to unconstrained and constrained total knee arthroplasty: An analysis of aseptic revisions after unicondylar and primary total knee arthroplasty of the German Arthroplasty Registry.

PURPOSE: Due to ageing population, the implantation rate of total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) is continuously growing. Aseptic revisions in primary knee arthroplasty are a major cause of revision. The aim of the following study was to determinate the incidence and reasons of aseptic revisions in constrained and unconstrained TKA, as well as in unicondylar knee arthroplasties (UKAs). METHODS: Data collection was performed using the German Arthroplasty Registry. Reasons for aseptic revisions were calculated. Incidence and comparison of aseptic revisions were analysed using Kaplan-Meier estimates. A multiple χ2 test with Holm's method was used to detect group differences in ligament ruptures. RESULTS: Overall, 300,998 cases of knee arthroplasty with 254,144 (84.4%) unconstrained TKA, 9993 (3.3%) constrained TKA and 36,861 (12.3%) UKA were analysed. Aseptic revision rate in UKA was significantly increased compared to unconstrained and constrained TKA (p < 0.0001). In constrained TKA, a 2.0% revision rate for aseptic reasons were reported after 1 year, while in unconstrained TKA 1.1% and in UKA, 2.7% of revisions were identified. After 7 years in constrained TKA 3.3%, in unconstrained TKA 2.8%, and in UKA 7.8% sustained aseptic revision. Ligament instability was the leading cause of aseptic revision accounting for 13.7% in unconstrained TKA. In constrained TKA, 2.8% resulted in a revision due to ligament instability. In the UKA, the most frequent cause of revisions was tibial loosening, accounting for 14.6% of cases, while progression of osteoarthritis accounted for 7.9% of revisions. Ligament instability was observed in 14.1% of males compared to 15.9% of females in unconstrained TKA and in 4.6% in both genders in UKA. CONCLUSION: In patients with UKA, aseptic revision rates are significantly higher compared to unconstrained and constrained TKA. Ligament instability was the leading cause of aseptic revision in unconstrained TKA. In UKA, the most frequent cause of revisions was tibial loosening, while progression of osteoarthritis was the second most frequent cause of revisions. Comparable levels of ligament instability were observed in both sexes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, cohort study.

The use of antibiotic-loaded bone cement and systemic antibiotic prophylactic use in 2,971,357 primary total knee arthroplasties from 2010 to 2020: an international register-based observational study among countries in Africa, Europe, North America, and Oceania.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Antibiotic-loaded bone cement (ALBC) and systemic antibiotic prophylaxis (SAP) have been used to reduce periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) rates. We investigated the use of ALBC and SAP in primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This observational study is based on 2,971,357 primary TKAs reported in 2010-2020 to national/regional joint arthroplasty registries in Australia, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Romania, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, the UK, and the USA. Aggregate-level data on trends and types of bone cement, antibiotic agents, and doses and duration of SAP used was extracted from participating registries. RESULTS: ALBC was used in 77% of the TKAs with variation ranging from 100% in Norway to 31% in the USA. Palacos R+G was the most common (62%) ALBC type used. The primary antibiotic used in ALBC was gentamicin (94%). Use of ALBC in combination with SAP was common practice (77%). Cefazolin was the most common (32%) SAP agent. The doses and duration of SAP used varied from one single preoperative dosage as standard practice in Bolzano, Italy (98%) to 1-day 4 doses in Norway (83% of the 40,709 TKAs reported to the Norwegian arthroplasty register). CONCLUSION: The proportion of ALBC usage in primary TKA varies internationally, with gentamicin being the most common antibiotic. ALBC in combination with SAP was common practice, with cefazolin the most common SAP agent. The type of ALBC and type, dose, and duration of SAP varied among participating countries.

[Aseptic revisions and pulmonary embolism after surgical treatment of femoral neck fractures with cemented and cementless hemiarthroplasty in Germany : An analysis from the Germany Arthroplasty Registry (EPRD)]. / Aseptische Revisionen und Lungenembolien nach operativer Behandlung von Schenkelhalsfrakturen mittels zementierten und zementfreien Hemiprothesen in Deutschland : Eine Analyse aus dem Endoprothesenregister Deutschland (EPRD).

BACKGROUND: Femoral neck fractures (FNF) are among the most common fractures in Germany and are often treated by hemiarthroplasty (HA). The aim of this study was to compare the occurrence of aseptic revisions after cemented and uncemented HA for the treatment of FNF. Secondly, the rate of pulmonary embolism was investigated. METHODS: Data collection for this study was performed using the German Arthroplasty Registry (EPRD). HAs after FNF were divided into subgroups stratified by stem fixation (cemented vs uncemented) and paired according to age, sex, BMI, and the Elixhauser score using Mahalanobis distance matching. RESULTS: Examination of 18,180 matched cases showed a significantly increased rate of aseptic revisions in uncemented HA (p < 0.0001). After 1 month 2.5% of HAs with uncemented stems required an aseptic revision, whereas 1.5% were reported in cemented HA. After 1 and 3 years' follow-up 3.9% and 4.5% of uncemented HA and 2.2% and 2.5% of cemented HA needed aseptic revision surgery. In particular, the proportion of periprosthetic fractures was increased in cementless implanted HA (p < 0.0001). During in-patient stays, pulmonary emboli occurred more frequently after cemented HA (0.81% vs 0.53% in cementless HA [OR: 1.53; p = 0.057]). CONCLUSION: For uncemented hemiarthroplasties a statistically significantly increased rate of aseptic revisions and periprosthetic fractures was evident within a time period of 5 years after implantation. During the in-hospital stay, patients with cemented HA experienced an increased rate of pulmonary embolism compared with patients with cementless HA, but this difference was not statistically significant. Based on the present results, with knowledge of prevention measures and the correct cementation technique, the use of cemented HA should be preferred in the treatment of femoral neck fractures.

Comparison of mortality rate and septic and aseptic revisions in total hip arthroplasties for osteoarthritis and femoral neck fracture: an analysis of the German Arthroplasty Registry.

BACKGROUND: Indications for total hip arthroplasties (THA) differ from primary osteoarthritis (OA), which allows elective surgery through femoral neck fractures (FNF), which require timely surgical care. The aim of this investigation was to compare mortality and revisions in THA for primary OA and FNF. METHODS: Data collection for this study was performed using the German Arthroplasty Registry (EPRD) with analysis THA for the treatment of FNF and OA. Cases were matched 1:1 according to age, sex, body mass index (BMI), cementation, and the Elixhauser score using Mahalanobis distance matching. RESULTS: Overall 43,436 cases of THA for the treatment of OA and FNF were analyzed in this study. Mortality was significantly increased in FNF, with 12.6% after 1 year and 36.5% after 5 years compared with 3.0% and 18.7% in OA, respectively (p < 0.0001). The proportion for septic and aseptic revisions was significantly increased in FNF (p < 0.0001). Main causes for an aseptic failure were mechanical complications (OA: 1.1%; FNF: 2.4%; p < 0.0001) and periprosthetic fractures (OA: 0.2%; FNF: 0.4%; p = 0.021). As influencing factors for male patients with septic failure (p < 0.002), increased BMI and Elixhauser comorbidity score and diagnosis of fracture (all p < 0.0001) were identified. For aseptic revision surgeries, BMI, Elixhauser score, and FNF were influencing factors (p < 0.0001), while all cemented and hybrid cemented THA were associated with a risk reduction for aseptic failure within 90 days after surgery (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: In femoral neck fractures treated with THA, a significant higher mortality, as well as septic and aseptic failure rate, was demonstrated compared with prosthesis for the therapy of osteoarthritis. Increased Elixhauser comorbidity score and BMI are the main influencing factors for development of septic or aseptic failure and can represent a potential approach for prevention measures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, Prognostic.

Infection after intracapsular femoral neck fracture - does antibiotic-loaded bone cement reduce infection risk after hemiarthroplasty and total hip arthroplasty?

Aims: The aim of this investigation was to compare risk of infection in both cemented and uncemented hemiarthroplasty (HA) as well as in total hip arthroplasty (THA) following femoral neck fracture. Methods: Data collection was performed using the German Arthroplasty Registry (EPRD). In HA and THA following femoral neck fracture, fixation method was divided into cemented and uncemented prostheses and paired according to age, sex, BMI, and the Elixhauser Comorbidity Index using Mahalanobis distance matching. Results: Overall in 13,612 cases of intracapsular femoral neck fracture, 9,110 (66.9%) HAs and 4,502 (33.1%) THAs were analyzed. Infection rate in HA was significantly reduced in cases with use of antibiotic-loaded cement compared with uncemented fixated prosthesis (p = 0.013). In patients with THA no statistical difference between cemented and uncemented prosthesis was registered, however after one year 2.4% of infections were detected in uncemented and 2.1% in cemented THA. In the subpopulation of HA after one year, 1.9% of infections were registered in cemented and 2.8% in uncemented HA. BMI (p = 0.001) and Elixhauser Comorbidity Index (p < 0.003) were identified as risk factors of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), while in THA cemented prosthesis also demonstrated an increased risk within the first 30 days (hazard ratio (HR) = 2.73; p = 0.010). Conclusion: The rate of infection after intracapsular femoral neck fracture was statistically significantly reduced in patients treated by antibiotic-loaded cemented HA. Particularly for patients with multiple risk factors for the development of a PJI, the usage of antibiotic-loaded bone cement seems to be a reasonable procedure for prevention of infection.

[10 Years of the German Arthroplasty Registry-EPRD: what has been achieved?] / 10 Jahre Endoprothesenregister Deutschland (EPRD): was wurde erreicht?

The German Arthroplasty Registry (EPRD) has been accumulating data on hip and knee arthroplasty procedures for 10 years. Even though the EPRD is a voluntary registry, it currently includes more than 2 million documented surgical procedures in Germany. This ranks the EPRD as the third largest registry in the world. The highly granular classification of the EPRD product database, which currently includes more than 70,000 components, is set to become the international standard. The linkage of hospital case data with specific implant component data and routine data from health insurance providers enables robust arthroplasty survival analyses. This provides hospitals, manufacturers, and the specialist community with access to specific results that contribute to improving arthroplasty quality. The registry is gaining increasing international recognition by publishing in peer-reviewed journals. An application procedure also allows "third-party" data access. Furthermore, the EPRD has also established an early warning system to detect anomalies in outcome. Software-based detection of potential implant component mismatches allows notification of hospitals concerned. In 2023, the EPRD will trial extending its data collection to include patient satisfaction surveys (i.e., patient-reported outcome measures), and subsequently to surgeon-specific data.

The Prophylactic Effect of Single vs. Dual Antibiotic-Loaded Bone Cement against Periprosthetic Joint Infection Following Hip Arthroplasty for Femoral Neck Fracture: An Analysis of the German Arthroplasty Registry.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic-loaded bone cement in arthroplasties is currently experiencing increased usage. Therefore, single and double antibiotic-loaded bone cements are commercially available and used in orthopedic surgery. The aim of this investigation was to compare the clinical use of single compared to dual antibiotic-loaded bone cement for implant fixation after femoral neck fracture. Further infection rates were to be compared in (partial) arthroplasty for the treatment of femoral neck fracture for both treatment options. METHODS: On the basis of the German Arthroplasty Registry (EPRD), all cases of femoral neck fracture treated with hemiarthroplasty (HA), or total hip arthroplasty (THA) with single and dual antibiotic-loaded bone cement, were included into the data analysis. The infection risk was compared using Kaplan-Meier estimates. RESULTS: In total, 26,845 cases (HA 76.3%-THA: 23.7%) with femoral neck fracture were included. Within recent years, an increasing usage of dual antibiotic-loaded cement in Germany, with a current proportion of 7.30% in arthroplasty procedures for femoral neck fracture treatment, has been observed. In patients treated with HA, the proportion of dual antibiotic-loaded cement was 7.86%, while in those treated with THA, 5.46% of all prostheses were fixated with a two antibiotic component cement. For all arthroplasty procedures using single antibiotic-loaded bone cement after six months 1.8%, after one year 1.9%, and after five years 2.3%, of the cases failed due to periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), while in the same time period, in cases with dual antibiotic-loaded bone cement 1.5%, 1.5% and 1.5% suffered from infection (p = 0.34). A infection rate of 1.1% after HA with dual antibiotic-loaded bone cement was reported, compared to a 2.1% infection rate whilst using single antibiotic-loaded bone cement after five years (p = 0.098). The number required for treatment when using HA was 91. CONCLUSIONS: The use of dual antibiotic-loaded bone cement is increasingly used in arthroplasty procedures after femoral neck fractures. It demonstrates a reduction of PJI after HA and seems, therefore, to be a useful method for the prevention of infection, especially in patients with increased risk factors for PJI.

Aseptic revisions and pulmonary embolism after surgical treatment of femoral neck fractures with cemented and cementless hemiarthroplasty in Germany: an analysis from the German Arthroplasty Registry (EPRD).

BACKGROUND: Femoral neck fractures (FNF) are among the most common fractures in Germany and are often treated by hemiarthroplasty (HA). The aim of this study was to compare the occurrence of aseptic revisions after cemented and uncemented HA for the treatment of FNF. Secondly, the rate of pulmonary embolism was investigated. METHODS: Data collection for this study was performed using the German Arthroplasty Registry (EPRD). HAs after FNF were divided into subgroups stratified by stem fixation (cemented vs uncemented) and paired according to age, sex, BMI, and the Elixhauser score using Mahalanobis distance matching. RESULTS: Examination of 18,180 matched cases showed a significantly increased rate of aseptic revisions in uncemented HA (p < 0.0001). After 1 month 2.5% of HAs with uncemented stems required an aseptic revision, while 1.5% were reported in cemented HA. After 1 and 3 years' follow-up 3.9% and 4.5% of uncemented HA and 2.2% and 2.5% of cemented HA needed aseptic revision surgery. In particular, the proportion of periprosthetic fractures was increased in cementless implanted HA (p < 0.0001). During in-patient stays, pulmonary emboli occurred more frequently after cemented HA [0.81% vs 0.53% in cementless HA (OR: 1.53; p = 0.057)]. CONCLUSION: For uncemented hemiarthroplasties a statistically significantly increased rate of aseptic revisions and periprosthetic fractures was evident within a time period of 5 years after implantation. During the in-hospital stay, patients with cemented HA experienced an increased rate of pulmonary embolism, but without statistically significant results. Based on the present results, with knowledge of prevention measurements and correct cementation technique, cemented HA should be preferred when using HA in the treatment of femoral neck fractures. TRAIL REGISTRATION: The study design of the German Arthroplasty Registry was approved by the University of Kiel (ID: D 473/11). LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, Prognostic.

[Standard and special liner in primary hip arthroplasty : Current study and survey results from the German Arthroplasty Registry (EPRD)]. / Standard- und Spezialinlays in primärer Hüftendoprothetik : Aktuelle Studien- und Umfrageergebnisse aus dem Endoprothesenregister Deutschland (EPRD).

BACKGROUND: Instability constitutes the main reason for revision hip arthroplasties. Modified polyethylene liners are designed to improve the stability of a hip replacement. In July 2022 The Bone & Joint Journal published a study with data of the German Arthroplasty Registry (EPRD). The study investigated mechanical failure of standard and modified liner designs in primary, cementless total hip arthroplasty. Following the study, the EPRD conducted a survey of German clinics to research the utilization of lipped liners in primary total hip replacement. METHODS: The liner study included 151,096 primary, elective, cementless total hip arthroplasties. Data from November 2012 to November 2020 were obtained from the EPRD. Standard polyethylene liners were compared with lipped, angulated, offset and angulated/offset inlays. Cumulative incidences for endpoint revision due to mechanical complication were calculated with a competing risk analysis. The influence of other variables was investigated with a multivariate Cox regression. In the following online survey, 237 out of 789 hospitals completed a form. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: In our analysis, only offset liners were, compared to standard liners, associated with a reduced risk of mechanical failure in a short to medium follow up. However, the resultant joint reaction force is increased with offset liners due to the lateralization of the hip center of rotation. Thus, the long-term performance of offset liners needs to be observed. Our survey indicated that lipped liners were implanted more often if the posterior approach was used. Moreover, lipped liners were mostly positioned with the elevated rim in the biomechanically less optimal posterior-superior quadrant. To improve stability it is suggested to position the elevated rim in the posterior-inferior quadrant.

Modified acetabular component liner designs are not superior to standard liners at reducing the risk of revision : an analysis of 151,096 cementless total hip arthroplasties from the German Arthroplasty Registry.

AIMS: Registry studies on modified acetabular polyethylene (PE) liner designs are limited. We investigated the influence of standard and modified PE acetabular liner designs on the revision rate for mechanical complications in primary cementless total hip arthroplasty (THA). METHODS: We analyzed 151,096 primary cementless THAs from the German Arthroplasty Registry (EPRD) between November 2012 and November 2020. Cumulative incidence of revision for mechanical complications for standard and four modified PE liners (lipped, offset, angulated/offset, and angulated) was determined using competing risk analysis at one and seven years. Confounders were investigated with a Cox proportional-hazards model. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 868 days (interquartile range 418 to 1,364). The offset liner design reduced the risk of revision (hazard ratio (HR) 0.68 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 0.92)), while the angulated/offset liner increased the risk of revision for mechanical failure (HR 1.81 (95% CI 1.38 to 2.36)). The cumulative incidence of revision was lowest for the offset liner at one and seven years (1.0% (95% CI 0.7 to 1.3) and 1.8% (95% CI 1.0 to 3.0)). No difference was found between standard, lipped, and angulated liner designs. Higher age at index primary THA and an Elixhauser Comorbidity Index greater than 0 increased the revision risk in the first year after surgery. Implantation of a higher proportion of a single design of liner in a hospital reduced revision risk slightly but significantly (p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: The use of standard acetabular component liners remains a good choice in primary uncemented THA, as most modified liner designs were not associated with a reduced risk of revision for mechanical failure. Offset liner designs were found to be beneficial and angulated/offset liner designs were associated with higher risks of revision. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(7):801-810.

Factors influencing periprosthetic femoral fracture risk.

AIMS: Periprosthetic femoral fractures (PPF) are a serious complication of total hip arthroplasty (THA) and are becoming an increasingly common indication for revision arthroplasty with the ageing population. This study aimed to identify potential risk factors for PPF based on an analysis of registry data. METHODS: Cases recorded with PPF as the primary indication for revision arthroplasty in the German Arthroplasty Registry (Endoprothesenregister Deutschland (EPRD)), as well as those classified as having a PPF according to the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes in patients' insurance records were identified from the complete datasets of 249,639 registered primary hip arthroplasties in the EPRD and included in the analysis. RESULTS: The incidence of PPFs was higher (24.6%; 1,483) than reported in EPRD annual reports listing PPF as the main reason for revision (10.9%; 654). The majority of fractures occurred intraoperatively and were directly related to the implantation process. Patients who were elderly, female, or had comorbidities were at higher risk of PPFs (p < 0.001). German hospitals with a surgical volume of < 300 primary procedures per year had a higher rate of PPFs (p < 0.001). The use of cemented and collared prostheses had a lower fracture risk PPF compared to uncemented and collarless components, respectively (both p < 0.001). Collared prostheses reduced the risk of PPF irrespective of the fixation method and hospital's surgical volume. CONCLUSION: The high proportion of intraoperative fractures emphasises the need to improve surgeon training and surgical technique. Registry data should be interpreted with caution because of potential differences in coding standards between institutions. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(4):650-658.

Ceramic-on-Ceramic Bearing in Total Hip Arthroplasty Reduces the Risk for Revision for Periprosthetic Joint Infection Compared to Ceramic-on-Polyethylene: A Matched Analysis of 118,753 Cementless THA Based on the German Arthroplasty Registry.

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is one of the most common complications in total hip arthroplasty (THA). The influence of bearing material on the risk of PJI remains unclear to date. This registry-based matched study investigates the role of bearing partners in primary cementless THA. Primary cementless THAs recorded in the German Arthroplasty Registry since 2012 with either a ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC) or ceramic-on-polyethylene (CoP) bearings were included in the analysis. Using propensity score matching (PSM) for age, sex, obesity, diabetes mellitus, Elixhauser comorbidity index, year of surgery and head size, we compared the risk for revision for PJI for CoC and CoP. Within the 115,538 THAs (87.1% CoP; 12.9% CoC), 977 revisions were performed due to PJI. There was a significantly higher risk for revision for PJI for CoP compared with CoC over the whole study period (p < 0.01) after 2:1 matching (CoP:CoC) with a hazard ratio of 1.41 (95% confidence interval (CI), 1.09 to 1.80) After 3 years, the risk for revision for PJI was 0.7% (CI 0.5-0.9%) for CoC and 0.9% (CI 0.8-1.1%) for CoP. The risk for revision for all other reasons except PJI did not significantly differ between the two groups over the whole study period (p = 0.4). Cementless THAs with CoC bearings were less likely to be revised because of infection in mid-term follow-up. In the future, registry-embedded studies focusing on long-term follow-up, including clinical data, as well as basic science studies, may give a deeper insight into the influence of the bearing partners.

Short versus conventional stem in cementless total hip arthroplasty : An evidence-based approach with registry data of mid-term survival.

BACKGROUND: Short-stemmed total hip arthroplasty (THA) is well established and gaining popularity in Germany. The perception that short stems may predispose to primary instability in the femur has resulted in a more thorough follow-up of younger patient cohorts than the typical uncemented THA population. To address this issue, an evidence-based approach is presented for a retrospective mid-term survival analysis of a large registry-based cohort in primary cementless THA comparing short stems with a matched group of conventional stems. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Propensity score matching (PSM, see Infobox 1) was used on 131,580 primary cementless THAs fulfilling the inclusion criteria performed between November 2012 and September 2019 and the cumulative probability of revision (CPR) of short and conventional stems for any reason, for reasons excluding prosthetic joint infection (PJI), and due to PJI were compared. RESULTS: After PSM at 1:1 balanced groups of 17,526 short stems and of 17,526 conventional stems were achieved demonstrating no significant difference for CPR for any reason and for reasons excluding PJI. Matched CPR for any reason was 2.9% (95% confidence interval, CI, 2.4-3.5%) 5 years after primary THA in the short stem and 3.1% (95% CI 2.7-3.4%) in the conventional stem group. The CPR excluding PJI was 2.2% (95% CI 1.7-2.7%) vs. 2.1% (95% CI 1.8-2.4%). In contrast, the incidence of PJI was statistically significant lower for short stems. CONCLUSION: For the considered period, there was no statistically significant survival difference in uncemented THA between comparison groups but a lower incidence for PJI in short-stem THA. Further analyses of registry data are required to rule out range of indications and late mechanical failure of short stems.