Are There Differences in Performance Among Femoral Stem Brands Utilized in Cementless Hemiarthroplasty for Treatment of Geriatric Femoral Neck Fractures?

BACKGROUND: For the vast majority of displaced femoral neck fractures in older patients, cemented femoral fixation is indicated because it is associated with a lower risk of periprosthetic fracture than cementless fixation. Nevertheless, cementless fixation continues to be utilized with high frequency for hip fractures in the United States. It is therefore helpful to understand the performance of individual cementless brands and models. Although prior studies have compared femoral stems by design type or stem geometry, there may still be a difference in revision risk according to femoral stem brand given the potential differences within design groupings with regard to manufacturing, implantation systems, and implant design nuances among vendors. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Is there a difference in aseptic revision risk among femoral stem brands in patients ≥ 60 years of age who have displaced femoral neck fractures treated with cementless hemiarthroplasty? (2) Is there a difference in revision for periprosthetic fracture among femoral stem brands in patients ≥ 60 years of age with displaced femoral neck fractures treated with cementless hemiarthroplasty? METHODS: A retrospective, comparative, large-database cohort study was conducted using data from Kaiser Permanente's Hip Fracture Registry. This integrated healthcare system covers more than 12 million members throughout eight regions in the United States; membership has been found to be representative of the general population in the areas served. The Hip Fracture Registry collects details on all patients who undergo hip fracture repair within the organization. These patients are then longitudinally monitored for outcomes after their repair, and all identified outcomes are manually validated through chart review. Patients ages ≥ 60 years who underwent unilateral hemiarthroplasty treatment of a displaced femoral neck fracture from 2009 to 2021 were identified (n = 22,248). Hemiarthroplasties for polytrauma, pathologic or open fractures, or patients who had additional surgeries at other body sites during the same stay, as well as those with prior procedures in the same hip, were excluded (21.4% [4768]). Cemented procedures and those with missing or inconsistent implant information (for example, cement used but cementless implant recorded) were further excluded (47.1% [10,485]). To allow for enough events for evaluation, the study sample was restricted to seven stems for which there were at least 300 hemiarthroplasties performed, including four models from DePuy Synthes (Corail®, Summit®, Summit Basic, and Tri-Lock®) and three from Zimmer Biomet (Medial-Lateral [M/L] Taper®, Trabecular Metal®, and Versys® Low Demand Fracture [LD/FX]). The final sample included 5676 cementless hemiarthroplasties: 653 Corail, 402 M/L Taper, 1699 Summit, 1590 Summit Basic, 384 Tri-Lock, 637 Trabecular Metal, and 311 Versys LD/FX. Procedures were performed by 396 surgeons at 35 hospitals. The mean age and BMI for the cohort was 81 years and 24 kg/m2, respectively; most were women (66% [3733 of 5676]) and White (79% [4488 of 5676]). Based on standardized mean differences, we controlled for age, race/ethnicity, American Society of Anesthesiologist (ASA) classification, anesthesia technique, operative year, average annual surgeon hemiarthroplasty volume, and operative year across the seven stem groups. Of the 5676 patients, 7% (378 of 5676) were lost to follow-up through membership termination at a median time of 1.6 years, and 56% (3194 of 5676) of the patients died during study follow-up. A multivariable cause-specific Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to evaluate the risk for aseptic revision with adjustment for age, gender, ASA classification, depression, operating surgeon, deficiency anemias, time from admission to surgery, and average annual surgeon hemiarthroplasty volume. A random intercept was included to address effects from hemiarthroplasties performed by the same surgeon. Risk for revision for periprosthetic fracture was also evaluated as a secondary outcome. RESULTS: In the adjusted analysis, the Summit Basic (HR 1.91 [95% confidence interval 1.34 to 2.72]; p < 0.001), the M/L Taper (HR 1.91 [95% CI 1.15 to 3.15]; p = 0.01), and the Versys LD/FX (HR 2.12 [95% CI 1.25 to 3.61]; p = 0.005) had higher aseptic revision risks during follow-up when compared with the Summit. No differences were observed for the Corail (HR 0.57 [95% CI 0.29 to 1.10]; p = 0.09), the Tri-Lock (HR 1.13 [95% CI 0.62 to 2.07]; p = 0.68), or the Trabecular Metal (HR 1.14 [95% CI 0.69 to 1.89]; p = 0.61) compared with the Summit. A higher risk for revision because of periprosthetic fracture was observed with the M/L Taper (HR 2.43 [95% CI 1.29 to 4.58]; p = 0.006) and the Summit Basic (within 3 months of follow-up: HR 1.16 [95% CI 0.60 to 2.25]; p = 0.66; after 3 months of follow-up: HR 2.84 [95% CI 1.36 to 5.94]; p = 0.006) stems when compared with the Summit. CONCLUSION: In a cohort of 5676 cementless hemiarthroplasties, we found differences in revision risks among different femoral stem brands. Based on our findings, we recommend against utilization of the Zimmer M/L Taper, DePuy Summit Basic, and Zimmer Versys LD/FX in the treatment of displaced geriatric femoral neck fractures with cementless hemiarthroplasty. Future large registry studies are needed to further elucidate differences in aseptic revision risk among higher performing cementless femoral stems. Although cemented fixation remains the recommended approach based on the best available evidence in hemiarthroplasty treatment of hip fractures, our findings may help to mitigate aseptic revision risk should cementless fixation be chosen. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Can Dual Mobility Cups Reduce Revision and Dislocation Risks? An Analysis of 107,528 Primary Total Hip Arthroplasties in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Dual mobility acetabular cups (DMC) were designed to increase the effective femoral head size and improve stability with the goal of reducing revision risk at the potential cost of polyethylene thickness. We sought to evaluate revision risk following primary elective total hip arthroplasty with DMC compared to highly cross-linked polyethylene (XLPE). METHODS: A cohort study was conducted using data from a Kaiser Permanente's total joint arthroplasty registry. Patients ≥18 years who underwent primary elective total hip arthroplasty using DMC, unipolar Metal-on-XLPE (MoXLPE), or unipolar Ceramic-on-XLPE (CoXLPE) were identified (2010 to 2021). The final sample comprised 2,219 DMC, 48,251 MoXLPE, and 57,058 CoXLPE. Multiple Cox proportional hazard regressions were used to evaluate aseptic revision and any dislocation regardless of revision within 6 years follow-up. RESULTS: In adjusted analyses, no differences in aseptic revision risk were observed for MoXLPE (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.04, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.72 to 1.51) or CoXLPE (HR = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.69 to 1.40) compared to DMC. No differences in dislocation risk were observed for MoXLPE (HR = 1.42, 95% CI = 0.93 to 2.15) or CoXLPE (HR = 1.25, 95% CI = 0.84 to 1.87) compared to DMC. CONCLUSIONS: In a US-based cohort, 6-year aseptic revision risk of DMC was similar to metal or ceramic femoral head unipolar constructs. Furthermore, no difference in dislocation risk was observed. Continued longer-term follow-up may reveal if there is a reduced risk of dislocation that comes at the cost of increased late revision. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Is Anesthesia Technique Associated With a Higher Risk of Mortality or Complications Within 90 Days of Surgery for Geriatric Patients With Hip Fractures?

BACKGROUND: Postoperative mortality and complications after geriatric hip fracture surgery remain high despite efforts to improve perioperative care for these patients. One factor of particular interest is anesthetic technique, but prior studies on this are limited by sample selection, competing risks, and incomplete followup. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Among older patients undergoing surgery for hip fracture, does 90-day mortality differ depending on the type of anesthesia received? (2) Do 90-day emergency department returns and hospital readmissions differ based on anesthetic technique after geriatric hip fracture repairs? (3) Do 90-day Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) outcomes differ according to anesthetic techniques used during hip fracture surgery? METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study on geriatric patients (65 years or older) with hip fractures between 2009 and 2014 using the Kaiser Permanente Hip Fracture Registry. A total of 1995 (11%) of the surgically treated patients with hip fracture were excluded as a result of missing anesthesia information. The final study sample consisted of 16,695 patients. Of these, 2027 (12%) died and 98 (< 1%) terminated membership during followup, which were handled as competing events and censoring events, respectively. Ninety-day mortality, emergency department returns, hospital readmission, deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE), myocardial infarction (MI), and pneumonia were evaluated using multivariable competing risk proportional subdistribution hazard regression according to type of anesthesia technique: general anesthesia, regional anesthesia, or conversion from regional to general. Of the 16,695 patients, 58% (N = 9629) received general anesthesia, 40% (N = 6597) received regional anesthesia, and 2.8% (N = 469) patients were converted from regional to general. RESULTS: Compared with regional anesthesia, patients treated with general anesthesia had a higher likelihood of overall 90-day mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.22; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11-1.35; p < 0.001); however, when stratified by before and after hospital discharge but within 90 days of surgery, this higher risk was only observed during the inpatient stay (HR, 3.83; 95% CI, 3.18-4.61; p < 0.001); no difference was observed after hospital discharge (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.94-1.16; p = 0.408). Patients undergoing conversion from regional to general also had a higher overall mortality risk compared with those undergoing regional anesthesia (HR, 1.34; 95% CI 1.04-1.74; p = 0.026), but this risk was only observed during their inpatient stay (HR, 6.84; 95% CI, 4.21-11.11; p < 0.001) when stratifying by before and after hospital discharge. Patients undergoing general anesthesia had a higher risk for all-cause readmission when compared with regional anesthesia (HR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.01-1.19; p = 0.026). No differences according to anesthesia type were observed for risk of 90-day AHRQ outcomes, including DVT/PE, MI, and pneumonia. CONCLUSIONS: We found the use of general anesthesia and conversion from regional to general anesthesia were associated with a higher risk of mortality during the in-hospital stay compared with regional anesthetic techniques, but this higher risk did not persist after hospital discharge. We also found general anesthesia to be associated with a higher risk of all-cause readmission compared with regional, but no other differences were observed in risk for complications. Our findings suggest regional anesthetic techniques may be preferred when possible in this patient population. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Reasons for Ninety-Day Emergency Visits and Readmissions After Elective Total Joint Arthroplasty: Results From a US Integrated Healthcare System.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies evaluating reasons for 30-day readmissions following total joint arthroplasty (TJA) may underestimate hospital-based utilization of healthcare resources during a patient's episode-of-care. We sought to identify common reasons for 90-day emergency department (ED) visits and hospital readmissions following primary elective unilateral TJA. METHODS: Patients from July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2015 having primary elective TJA and at least one 90-day postoperative ED-only visit and/or readmission for any reason were identified using the Kaiser Permanente Total Joint Replacement Registry. Chart reviews for ED visits/readmissions included 13 surgical and 11 medical reasons. The 2344 total hips and 5520 total knees were analyzed separately. RESULTS: Incidence of at least one ED visit following total hip arthroplasty (THA) was 13.4% and 4.5% for readmissions. The most frequent reasons for ED visits were swelling (15.6%) and pain (12.8%); the most frequent reasons for readmissions were infection (12.5%) and unrelated elective procedures (9.0%). The incidence of at least one ED visit following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) was 13.8%, and the incidence of readmission was 5.5%. The most frequent reasons for ED visits were pain (15.8%) and swelling (15.6%); the most common readmission reasons were gastrointestinal (19.1%) and manipulation under anesthesia (9.4%). CONCLUSION: Swelling and pain related to the procedure were the most frequent reasons for 90-day ED visits after both THA and TKA. Readmissions were most commonly due to infection or unrelated procedures for THA and gastrointestinal or manipulation under anesthesia for TKA. Modifications to discharge protocols may help prevent or alleviate these issues, avoiding unnecessary hospital returns.

Unipolar Hemiarthroplasty, Bipolar Hemiarthroplasty, or Total Hip Arthroplasty for Hip Fracture in Older Individuals.

BACKGROUND: Practice patterns regarding the use of unipolar hemiarthroplasty, bipolar hemiarthroplasty, and total hip arthroplasty (THA) for femoral neck fractures in older patients vary widely. This is due in part to limited data stipulating the specific circumstances under which each form of arthroplasty provides the most predictable outcome. The purpose of this study was to investigate the patient characteristics for which unipolar hemiarthroplasty, bipolar hemiarthroplasty, or THA might be preferable due to a lower risk of all-cause revision. METHODS: A U.S. health-care system's hip fracture registry was used to identify patients ≥60 years old who underwent unipolar hemiarthroplasty, bipolar hemiarthroplasty, or THA for hip fracture from 2009 through 2021. Unipolar and bipolar hemiarthroplasty were compared with THA within patient subgroups defined by age (60 to 79 versus ≥80 years) and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification (I or II versus III); patients with an ASA classification of IV or higher were excluded. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression analysis was used to evaluate all-cause revision risk while adjusting for confounders, with mortality considered as a competing risk. RESULTS: There were 14,277 patients in the final sample (median age, 82 years; 70% female; 80% White; 69% with an ASA classification of III; median follow-up, 2.7 years), and the procedures included 7,587 unipolar hemiarthroplasties, 5,479 bipolar hemiarthroplasties, and 1,211 THAs. In the multivariable analysis of all patients, both unipolar (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.15, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.48 to 3.12; p < 0.001) and bipolar (HR = 1.92, 95% CI = 1.31 to 2.80; p < 0.001) hemiarthroplasty had higher revision risks than THA. In the age-stratified multivariable analysis of patients aged 60 to 79 years, both unipolar (HR = 2.17, 95% CI = 1.42 to 3.34; p = 0.004) and bipolar (HR = 1.69, 95% CI = 1.08 to 2.65; p = 0.022) hemiarthroplasty also had higher revision risks than THA. In the ASA-stratified multivariable analysis, patients with an ASA classification of I or II had a higher revision risk after either unipolar (HR = 3.52, 95% CI = 1.87 to 6.64; p < 0.001) or bipolar (HR = 2.31, 95% CI = 1.19 to 4.49; p = 0.013) hemiarthroplasty than after THA. No difference in revision risk between either of the hemiarthroplasties and THA was observed among patients with an age of ≥80 years or those with an ASA classification of III. CONCLUSIONS: In this study of hip fractures in older patients, THA was associated with a lower risk of all-cause revision compared with unipolar and bipolar hemiarthroplasty among patients who were 60 to 79 years old and those who had an ASA classification of I or II. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Seven-Year Revision Rates for Cochlear Implants in Pediatric and Adult Populations of an Integrated Healthcare System.

OBJECTIVE: We assessed three cochlear implant (CI) suppliers: Advanced Bionics, Cochlear Limited, and MED-EL, for implant revision requiring reoperation after CI placement. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of integrated-health-system database between 2010 and 2021. Separate models were created for pediatric (age <18) and adult (age ≥18) cohorts. PATIENTS: Pediatric (age <18) and adult (age ≥18) patients undergoing cochlear implantation within our integrated healthcare system. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Revision after CI placement. Cox proportional hazard regression was used to evaluate revision risk and adjust for confounding factors. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are presented. RESULTS: A total of 2,347 patients underwent a primary CI placement, and Cochlear Limited was most implanted (51.5%), followed by Advanced Bionics (35.2%) and MED-EL (13.3%). In the pediatric cohort, the 7-year crude revision rate was 10.9% for Advanced Bionics and 4.8% for Cochlear Limited, whereas MED-EL had insufficient cases. In adults, the rates were 9.1%, 4.5%, and 3.3% for Advanced Bionics, MED-EL, and Cochlear Limited, respectively. After 2 years of postoperative follow-up, Advanced Bionics had a significantly higher revision risk (HR = 8.25, 95% CI = 2.91-23.46); MED-EL had no difference (HR = 2.07, 95% CI = 0.46-9.25). CONCLUSION: We found an increased revision risk after 2 years of follow-up for adults with Advanced Bionics CI devices. Although we found no statistical difference between manufacturers in the pediatric cohort, after 2 years of follow-up, there were increasing trends in the revision probability for Advanced Bionics. Further research may determine whether patients are better suited for some CI devices.

Improvements in Quality, Safety and Costs Associated with Use of Implant Registries Within a Health System.

BACKGROUND: Clinical quality registries (CQRs) are intended to enhance quality, safety, and cost reduction using real-world data for a self-improving health system. Starting in 2001, Kaiser Permanente established several medical device CQRs as a quality improvement initiative. This report examines the contributions of these CQRs on improvement in health outcomes, changes in clinical practice, and cost-effectiveness over the past 20 years. METHODS: Eight implant registries were instituted with standardized collection from the electronic health record and other institutional data sources of patient characteristics, medical comorbidities, implant attributes, procedure details, surgical techniques, and outcomes (including complications, revisions, reoperations, hospital readmissions, and other utilization measures). A rigorous quality control system is in place to improve and maintain the quality of data. Data from the Implant Registries form the basis for multiple quality improvement and patient safety initiatives to minimize variation in care, promote clinical best practices, facilitate recalls, perform benchmarking, identify patients at risk, and construct reports about individual surgeons. RESULTS: Following the inception of the Implant Registries, there was an observed (1) reduction in opioid utilization following orthopedic procedures, (2) reduction in use of bone morphogenic protein during lumbar fusion allowing for cost savings, (3) reduction in allograft for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and subsequent decrease in organizationwide revision rates, (4) cost savings through expansion of same-day discharge programs for joint arthroplasty, (5) increase in the use of cement fixation in the hemiarthroplasty treatment of hip fracture, and (6) organizationwide discontinuation of an endograft device associated with a higher risk for adverse outcomes following endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. CONCLUSION: The use of Implant Registries within our health system, along with clinical leadership and organizational commitment to a learning health system, was associated with improved quality and safety outcomes and reduced costs. The exact mechanisms by which such registries affect health outcomes and costs require further study.

Risk of Revision After Hip Fracture Fixation Using DePuy Synthes Trochanteric Fixation Nail or Trochanteric Fixation Nail Advanced: A Cohort Study of 7,979 Patients.

BACKGROUND: Prior reports of the DePuy Synthes Trochanteric Fixation Nail Advanced (TFNA) revealed a potential mode of fatigue failure at the proximal screw aperture following fixation of extracapsular hip fractures. We sought to compare the revision risk between the TFNA and its prior-generation forebear, the Trochanteric Fixation Nail (TFN). METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed using data from a U.S. integrated health-care system's hip fracture registry. The study sample comprised patients who underwent cephalomedullary nail fixation for hip fracture with a TFN (n = 4,007) or TFNA (n = 3,972) from 2014 to 2019. We evaluated the charts and radiographs for patients who underwent any revision. Multivariable Cox regression was used to evaluate the risk of revision related to the index fracture. RESULTS: At the 3-year follow-up, the cumulative probability of revision related to the index fracture was 1.8% for the TFN and 1.9% for the TFNA. After adjustment for covariates, no difference was observed in revision risk (hazard ratio [HR], 1.18 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.80 to 1.75]; p = 0.40) for the TFNA compared with the TFN. The TFNA was associated with a higher risk of revision for nonunion than the TFN (HR, 1.86 [95% CI, 1.11 to 3.12]; p = 0.018). At the 3-year follow-up, implant breakage was 0.06% for the TFN and 0.2% for the TFNA; with regard to aperture failures related to the index fracture, there were 1 failure for the TFN group and 3 failures for the TFNA group. CONCLUSIONS: In a large cohort from a U.S. hip fracture registry, the TFNA had an overall revision rate that was similar to that of the earlier TFN, with implant breakage being a rare revision reason for both groups. Chart and radiographic review found that the TFNA was associated with a higher risk of revision for nonunion. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.