Machine Learning Did Not Outperform Conventional Competing Risk Modeling to Predict Revision Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Estimating the risk of revision after arthroplasty could inform patient and surgeon decision-making. However, there is a lack of well-performing prediction models assisting in this task, which may be due to current conventional modeling approaches such as traditional survivorship estimators (such as Kaplan-Meier) or competing risk estimators. Recent advances in machine learning survival analysis might improve decision support tools in this setting. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the performance of machine learning compared with that of conventional modeling to predict revision after arthroplasty. QUESTION/PURPOSE: Does machine learning perform better than traditional regression models for estimating the risk of revision for patients undergoing hip or knee arthroplasty? METHODS: Eleven datasets from published studies from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register reporting on factors associated with revision or survival after partial or total knee and hip arthroplasty between 2018 and 2022 were included in our study. The 11 datasets were observational registry studies, with a sample size ranging from 3038 to 218,214 procedures. We developed a set of time-to-event models for each dataset, leading to 11 comparisons. A set of predictors (factors associated with revision surgery) was identified based on the variables that were selected in the included studies. We assessed the predictive performance of two state-of-the-art statistical time-to-event models for 1-, 2-, and 3-year follow-up: a Fine and Gray model (which models the cumulative incidence of revision) and a cause-specific Cox model (which models the hazard of revision). These were compared with a machine-learning approach (a random survival forest model, which is a decision tree-based machine-learning algorithm for time-to-event analysis). Performance was assessed according to discriminative ability (time-dependent area under the receiver operating curve), calibration (slope and intercept), and overall prediction error (scaled Brier score). Discrimination, known as the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, measures the model's ability to distinguish patients who achieved the outcomes from those who did not and ranges from 0.5 to 1.0, with 1.0 indicating the highest discrimination score and 0.50 the lowest. Calibration plots the predicted versus the observed probabilities; a perfect plot has an intercept of 0 and a slope of 1. The Brier score calculates a composite of discrimination and calibration, with 0 indicating perfect prediction and 1 the poorest. A scaled version of the Brier score, 1 - (model Brier score/null model Brier score), can be interpreted as the amount of overall prediction error. RESULTS: Using machine learning survivorship analysis, we found no differences between the competing risks estimator and traditional regression models for patients undergoing arthroplasty in terms of discriminative ability (patients who received a revision compared with those who did not). We found no consistent differences between the validated performance (time-dependent area under the receiver operating characteristic curve) of different modeling approaches because these values ranged between -0.04 and 0.03 across the 11 datasets (the time-dependent area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the models across 11 datasets ranged between 0.52 to 0.68). In addition, the calibration metrics and scaled Brier scores produced comparable estimates, showing no advantage of machine learning over traditional regression models. CONCLUSION: Machine learning did not outperform traditional regression models. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Neither machine learning modeling nor traditional regression methods were sufficiently accurate in order to offer prognostic information when predicting revision arthroplasty. The benefit of these modeling approaches may be limited in this context.

The Rise of the Direct Anterior Approach: Trends, Learning Curves, and Patient Characteristics of 63,182 Primary Total Hip Arthroplasties in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI).

BACKGROUND: The use of the direct anterior approach (DAA) in total hip arthroplasty (THA) has steadily increased in the Netherlands since 2007. The aim of this study was to outline how the DAA has been implemented in the Netherlands. Moreover, we investigated the learning curve of the DAA at a hospital level, and explored patient characteristics of the DAA compared with other approaches and during the learning phase after implementing the DAA. METHODS: In this population-based cohort study, we included all primary THAs between 2007 and 2020 (n = 342,473) from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register. For hospitals implementing the DAA (n > 20), patients were categorized in 4 experience groups using the date of surgery: 1 to 50, 51 to 100, 101 to 150, or > 150. Subsequently, data from different hospitals were pooled and survival rates were calculated using Kaplan-Meier survival analyses. Adjusted revision rates were calculated using mixed Cox proportional hazard models (frailty). RESULTS: The use of the DAA gradually rose from 0.2% in 2007 to 41% of all primary THAs in 2020. A total of 64 (56%) hospitals implemented the DAA. However, not all hospitals continued using this approach. After implementation, the 5-year survival rate for the first 50 procedures was significantly lower (96% confidence interval [CI] 95.8 to 97.2) compared to >150 procedures (98% CI 97.7 to 98.1). Multivariable Cox hazard analyses demonstrated a higher risk of revision during the first 50 procedures compared with >150 procedures (hazard ratio 1.6, CI 1.3 to 2.0). CONCLUSIONS: The use of DAA for primary THA significantly increased. For hospitals implementing DAA, a considerable learning curve with increased revision risk was seen.

Time trends in case-mix and risk of revision following hip and knee arthroplasty in public and private hospitals: a cross-sectional analysis based on 476,312 procedures from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: This study aims to assess time trends in case-mix and to evaluate the risk of revision and causes following primary THA, TKA, and UKA in private and public hospitals in the Netherlands. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 476,312 primary arthroplasties (public: n = 413,560 and private n = 62,752) implanted between 2014 and 2023 using Dutch Arthroplasty Register data. We explored patient demographics, procedure details, trends over time, and revisions per hospital type. Adjusted revision risk was calculated for comparable subgroups (ASA I/II, age ≤ 75, BMI ≤ 30, osteoarthritis diagnosis, and moderate-high socioeconomic status (SES). RESULTS: The volume of THAs and TKAs in private hospitals increased from 4% and 9% in 2014, to 18% and 21% in 2022. Patients in private hospitals were younger, had lower ASA classification, lower BMI, and higher SES compared with public hospital patients. In private hospitals, age and ASA II proportion increased over time. Multivariable Cox regression demonstrated a lower revision risk for primary THA (HR 0.7, CI 0.7-0.8), TKA (HR 0.8, CI 0.7-0.9), and UKA (HR 0.8, CI 0.7-0.9) in private hospitals. After initial arthroplasty in private hospitals, 49% of THA and 37% of TKA revisions were performed in public hospitals. CONCLUSION: Patients in private hospitals were younger, had lower ASA classification, lower BMI, and higher SES com-pared with public hospital patients. The number of arthroplasties increased in private hospitals, with a lower revision risk compared with public hospitals.

Positive Intraoperative Cultures in Cup Revisions of THA: What Happens to the Stem?

BACKGROUND: Positive intraoperative cultures (PICs) are encountered in some patients undergoing revision of the acetabular cup after a previous THA. It is unknown whether PIC of the cup indicates whether the stem is infected as well and what happens to the stem during follow-up. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What proportion of patients undergoing THA who undergo cup revision have PICs? (2) What is the survival of the stem during follow-up in cup revisions with PICs versus that of those with negative cultures? (3) Does antibiotic treatment of PIC of the cup prevent revision THA during follow-up? METHODS: In this retrospective, comparative multicenter study, five surgeons at four centers performed 338 acetabular cup revisions between January 2015 and December 2017. After evaluating the data, we excluded one patient because of an incomplete dataset and 77 patients because fewer than three intraoperative cultures were obtained during surgery, leaving 260 patients for analysis. Follow-up was 2 years. Patients were stratified into three cohorts: no PIC, one PIC, and two or more PICs. RESULTS: The proportion of patients with one or more PIC was 15% (39 of 260). A total of 8% (21 of 260) had one and 7% (18 of 260) had two or more PICs. Stem survival was lower in patients with two or more PICs, but stem revision for periprosthetic joint infection was similar between groups. Two-year survival, which was defined as freedom from revision for any cause or infection, was 97% (95% confidence interval 95% to 99%) in the group without PICs, 100% (95% CI 95% to 100%) in the group with one PIC, and 86% (95% CI 68% to 100%; p = 0.08) in the group with two or more PICs. None of the patients in the no PIC and one PIC groups were treated with antibiotics. In the two or more PICs cohort, 12 of 18 patients were treated. The stem survived in one of 12 patients treated with antibiotics versus two of six patients who were not treated with antibiotics. CONCLUSION: When treated with antibiotics, more than two PICs isolated during cup revision surgery do not have a major impact on survival of the stem during follow-up. A larger cohort of patients with PICs during cup revision might confirm these findings. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Similar revision rate after cemented and cementless femoral revisions for periprosthetic femoral fractures in total hip arthroplasty: analysis of 1,879 revision hip arthroplasties in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Periprosthetic femoral fracture (PPF) after total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a serious complication, as it often is followed by functional deficits and morbidity. There is no consensus regarding the optimal stem fixation method and whether additional cup replacement is beneficial. The aim of our study was to perform a direct comparison of reasons and risk of re-revision between cemented and uncemented revision THAs following PPF using registry data. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 1,879 patients registered in the Dutch Arthroplasty Registry (LROI) who underwent a first-time revision for PPF between 2007 and 2021 (cemented stem: n = 555; uncemented stem: n = 1,324) were included. Competing risk survival analysis and multivariable Cox proportional hazard analyses were performed. RESULTS: 5- and 10-year crude cumulative incidence of re-revision following revision for PPF was similar between cemented (resp. 13%, 95% CI 10-16 and 18%, CI 13-24) and uncemented (resp. 11%, CI 10-13 and 13%, CI 11-16) revisions. Multivariable Cox regression analysis, adjusting for potential confounders, showed a similar risk of revision for uncemented and cemented revision stems. Finally, we found no difference in risk of re-revision between a total revision (HR 1.2, 0.6-2.1) compared with a stem revision. CONCLUSION: We found no difference in the risk of re-revision between cemented and uncemented revision stems after revision for PPF.

Revision risk by using the direct superior approach (DSA) for total hip arthroplasty compared with postero-lateral approach: early nationwide results from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI).

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The direct superior approach (DSA) is a modification of the classic posterolateral approach (PLA) for total hip arthroplasty (THA), in which the iliotibial band and short external rotators are spared. The revision rate of the DSA has not been investigated previously using arthroplasty registry data. We examined the reasons and risk of revision of the DSA, compared with the direct anterior approach (DAA) and PLA. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this population-based cohort study we included 175,543 primary THAs performed between 2014 and 2020 (PLA, n = 117,576; DAA, n = 56,626; DSA, n = 1,341). Competing risk survival analysis and multivariable Cox proportional hazard analyses, adjusted for potential confounders, were performed. RESULTS: After 3 years, crude revision rates due to any reason were 2.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.3-3.3) for DSA, and 2.9% (CI 2.8-3.0) for PLA. Crude dislocation revision rates were 0.3% (CI 0.1-0.8) for DSA, versus 1.0% (CI 0.9-1.0) for PLA. Dislocation revision rate for DSA did not differ from DAA (0.3% [CI 0.2-0.3]). Multivariable Cox regression analysis demonstrated no overall difference in revision rates for the DSA (HR 0.6 [CI 0.4-1.09) compared with the PLA. Lower risk of revision due to dislocation was found in patients operated on through the DSA (HR 0.3 [0.1-0.9]) compared with the PLA. CONCLUSION: Early nationwide results suggest that the DSA for total hip arthroplasty seems to show a tendency towards a lower risk of revision for dislocation but no overall reduced revision risk compared with the PLA.

No clinically relevant difference in patient-reported outcomes between the direct superior approach and the posterolateral or anterior approach for primary total hip arthroplasty: analysis of 37,976 primary hip arthroplasties in the Dutch Arthroplasty Registry.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The direct superior approach (DSA) is a modification of the posterolateral approach (PLA) for total hip arthroplasty (THA). Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) of the DSA have not been investigated previously using nationwide data. Our aim was to assess PROMs after THA using the DSA compared with the PLA and, secondarily, with the anterior approach (DAA). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this population-based cohort study we included 37,976 primary THAs performed between 2014 and 2020 (PLA: n = 22,616; DAA: n = 15,017; DSA: n = 343) using Dutch Arthroplasty Registry data. PROMs (NRS pain, EQ-5D, HOOS-PS, and OHS) were measured preoperatively, and at 3 and 12 months postoperatively. Repeated measurements were analyzed using mixed-effects models, adjusted for confounders, to investigate the association between surgical approach and PROMs over time. RESULTS: From baseline to 3 and 12 months, improvements for NRS pain scores, EQ-5D, and OHS were comparable for the DSA compared with the PLA or DAA. No difference was found in HOOS-PS improvement 3 months postoperatively between DSA and PLA (-0.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] -2.4 to 1.9) and between DSA and DAA (-1.7, CI -3.9 to 0.5). At 12 months postoperatively, patients in the DSA group had improved -2.8 points (CI -4.9 to -0.6) more in HOOS-PS compared with the DAA, but not with the PLA group (-1.0, CI -3.2 to 1.1). CONCLUSION: Our study showed no clinically meaningful differences between the DSA and either PLA or DAA.

The learning curve of the direct anterior approach is 100 cases: an analysis based on 15,875 total hip arthroplasties in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In the last decade, the direct anterior approach (DAA) for total hip arthroplasty (THA) has become more popular in the Netherlands. Therefore, we investigated the learning curve and survival rate of the DAA in primary THA, using data from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We identified all patients who received a primary THA using the DAA in several high-volume centers in the Netherlands between 2007 and 2019 (n = 15,903). Procedures were ordered per surgeon, using date of operation. Using the procedure number, operations were divided into 6 groups based on the number of previous procedures per surgeon (first 25, 26-50, 51-100, 101-150, 151-200, > 200). Data from different surgeons in different hospitals was pooled together. Revision rates were calculated using a multilevel time-to-event analysis. RESULTS: Patients operated on in group 1-25 (hazard ratio [HR] 1.6; 95% CI 1.1-2.4) and 26-50 (HR 1.6; CI 1.1-2.5) had a higher risk for revision compared with patients operated on in group > 200 THAs. Between 50 and 100 procedures the revision risk was increased (HR 1.3; CI 0.9-1.9), albeit not statistically significant. From 100 procedures onwards the HR for revision was respectively 1.0 (CI 0.6-1.6) and 0.8 (CI 0.5-1.4) for patients in operation groups 101-150 and 151-200. Main reasons for revision were loosening of the stem (29%), periprosthetic infection (19%), and dislocation (16%). INTERPRETATION: We found a 64% increased risk of revision for patients undergoing THA using the DAA for the first 50 cases per surgeon. Between 50 and 100 cases, this risk was 30% increased, but not statistically significant. From 100 cases onwards, a steady state had been reached in revision rate. The learning curve for DAA therefore is around 100 cases.

If, When, and How to Use Rifampin in Acute Staphylococcal Periprosthetic Joint Infections, a Multicentre Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Rifampin is generally advised in the treatment of acute staphylococcal periprosthetic joint infections (PJI). However, if, when, and how to use rifampin remains a matter of debate. We evaluated the outcome of patients treated with and without rifampin, and analyzed the influence of timing, dose and co-antibiotic. METHODS: Acute staphylococcal PJIs treated with surgical debridement between 1999 and 2017, and a minimal follow-up of 1 year were evaluated. Treatment failure was defined as the need for any further surgical procedure related to infection, PJI-related death or the need for suppressive antimicrobial treatment. RESULTS: A total of 669 patients were analyzed. Treatment failure was 32.2% (131/407) in patients treated with rifampin and 54.2% (142/262) in whom rifampin was withheld (P < .001). The most prominent effect of rifampin was observed in knees (treatment failure 28.6% versus 63.9%, respectively, P < .001). The use of rifampin was an independent predictor of treatment success in the multi-variate analysis (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.20 - 0.45). In the rifampin group, the use of a co-antibiotic other than a fluoroquinolone or clindamycin (OR 10.1, 95% CI 5.65 - 18.2) and the start of rifampin within 5 days after surgical debridement (OR 1.96, 95% CI 1.08 - 3.65) were predictors of treatment failure. The dosing of rifampin had no effect on outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Our data supports the use of rifampin in acute staphylococcal PJIs treated with surgical debridement, particularly in knees. Immediate start of rifampin after surgical debridement should probably be discouraged, but requires further investigation.

Debridement, Antibiotics, and Implant Retention Is a Viable Treatment Option for Early Periprosthetic Joint Infection Presenting More Than 4 Weeks After Index Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: The success of debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) in early periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) largely depends on the presence of a mature biofilm. At what time point DAIR should be disrecommended is unknown. This multicenter study evaluated the outcome of DAIR in relation to the time after index arthroplasty. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated PJIs occurring within 90 days after surgery and treated with DAIR. Patients with bacteremia, arthroscopic debridements, and a follow-up <1 year were excluded. Treatment failure was defined as (1) any further surgical procedure related to infection; (2) PJI-related death; or (3) use of long-term suppressive antibiotics. RESULTS: We included 769 patients. Treatment failure occurred in 294 patients (38%) and was similar between time intervals from index arthroplasty to DAIR: the failure rate for Week 1-2 was 42% (95/226), the rate for Week 3-4 was 38% (143/378), the rate for Week 5-6 was 29% (29/100), and the rate for Week 7-12 was 42% (27/65). An exchange of modular components was performed to a lesser extent in the early post-surgical course compared with the late course (41% vs 63%, respectively; P < .001). The causative microorganisms, comorbidities, and durations of symptoms were comparable between time intervals. CONCLUSIONS: DAIR is a viable option in patients with early PJI presenting more than 4 weeks after index surgery, as long as DAIR is performed within at least 1 week after the onset of symptoms and modular components can be exchanged.

Patient Characteristics Influence Revision Rate of Total Hip Arthroplasty: American Society of Anesthesiologists Score and Body Mass Index Were the Strongest Predictors for Short-Term Revision After Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Outcome and survival after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) can be affected by patient characteristics. We examined the effect of case-mix on revision after primary THA using the Dutch Arthroplasty Register. METHODS: Our cohort included all primary THAs (n = 218,214) performed in patients with osteoarthritis in the Netherlands between 2007 and 2018. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to calculate the difference in survivorship in patients with different patient characteristics (age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists [ASA] score, body mass index [BMI], Charnley score, smoking, and previous operations to the hip). RESULTS: Case-mix factors associated with an increased risk for revision 1 year after THA were the following: a high ASA score (II and III-IV) (odds ratio [OR] 1.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1-2.0 and OR 3.0, 95% CI 1.7-5.3), a higher BMI (30-40 and >40) (OR 1.4, 95% CI 1.2-1.5 and OR 2.0, 95% CI 1.4-1.7), age ≥75 years (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.1-2.0), and male gender (OR 1.3, 95% CI 1.2-1.4). A similar model for 3-year revision showed comparable results. High BMI (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.3-2.9), a previous hip operation (OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.3-2.5), ASA III-IV (OR 1.2, 95% CI 1-1.6), and Charnley score C (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.1-2.2) were associated with increased risk for revision. Main reasons for revision in obese and ASA II-IV patients were infection, dislocation, and periprosthetic fracture. Patients with femoral neck fracture and late post-traumatic pathology were more likely to be revised within 3 years, compared to osteoarthritis patients (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.3-1.7 and OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.2-1.7). CONCLUSION: The short-term risk for revision after primary THA is influenced by case-mix factors. ASA score and BMI (especially >40) were the strongest predictors for 1-year revision after primary THA. After 3 years, BMI and previous hip surgery were independent risk factors for revision. This will help surgeons to identify and counsel high-risk patients and take appropriate preventive measures.

A Second Surgical Debridement for Acute Periprosthetic Joint Infections Should Not Be Discarded.

BACKGROUND: In acute periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs), a second surgical debridement (debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention [DAIR]) is generally not recommended after a failed first one. We identified the failure rate of a second DAIR and aimed to identify patients in whom an additional debridement might still be beneficial. METHODS: Patients with acute PJI of the hip or knee and treated with DAIR between 2006 and 2016 were retrospectively evaluated. A second DAIR was routinely performed provided that the soft tissue was intact. Failure of a second DAIR was described as (1) the need for additional surgical intervention to achieve infection control, (2) the need for antibiotic suppressive therapy due to persistent clinical and/or biochemical signs of infection, or (3) PJI related death. RESULTS: From the 455 cases treated with DAIR, 144 cases underwent a second debridement (34.6%). Thirty-seven cases failed (37/144, 25.7%). The implant needed to be removed in 23 cases (23/144, 16%). Positive cultures during the second DAIR (odds ratio 3.16, 95% confidence interval 1.29-7.74) and chronic renal insufficiency (odds ratio 13.6, 95% confidence interval 2.03-91.33) were independent predictors for failure in the multivariate analysis. No difference in failure was observed between persistent infection with the same microorganism and reinfection with a new microorganism (failure rate 31.6% vs 34.6%, P = .83). CONCLUSION: A second DAIR had a low failure rate in our cohort of patients and the implant could be retained in the majority of them. Therefore, a second DAIR should not be discarded in acute PJIs.

Is a hip flip the right trick?

Clinical introductionA 68-year-old man, with known spasticity and a total left hip arthroplasty (THA) performed 6 years ago, was brought to our ED after falling down the stairs. Laying on the stretcher, his left leg was internally rotated and in hyperflexion. An X-ray of the left hip was performed. The diagnosis of posterior hip dislocation was made (figure 1). The patient received sedation and analgesia with 75 mg propofol and 9 mg esketamine intravenously, and a closed reduction procedure was attempted using manual flexion, adduction, traction and internal rotation. Unfortunately, the reduction failed.emermed;37/1/53/F1F1F1Figure 1The patient's X-ray. QUESTION: Why is closed reduction not effective in this case?The femoral head is located more cranially expected, due to material failure. The whole THA should be replaced.This is an anterior dislocation. The closed reduction procedure should be performed by using extension, abduction, traction and internal rotation.The femoral head is not reduced centrally in the acetabulum and the closed reduction procedure should be repeated more forcefully.A dual-mobility cup is used and the liner is not in place anymore. Revision surgery is required. For answer see page 2.

The recovery after Achilles tendon rupture: a protocol for a multicenter prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Achilles tendon rupture (ATR) is a common sports injury, with a rising incidence and significant impairments. Due to the lack of treatment guidelines, there is no consensus about diagnostic methods, primary treatment (non-surgical or surgical) and rehabilitation. It is hypothesized that this lack of consensus and guidelines leads to sub-optimal recovery and higher societal costs. The primary aim of this study is to give a broad insight into the recovery after ATR. Secondarily this study aims to explore factors contributing to recovery and gain insight into the cost-effectiveness of ATR management. METHODS: This multicenter prospective cohort study will include all adult (≥ 18 years) patients with an ATR treated at the three main hospitals in the Northern Netherlands: University Medical Center Groningen, Martini Hospital Groningen and Medical Center Leeuwarden. All subjects will be invited for three visits at 3, 6 and 12 months post-injury. The following data will be collected: patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), physical tests, imaging and economic questionnaires. At 3 months post-injury personal, injury, and treatment data will be collected through a baseline questionnaire and assessment of the medical file. The PROMs concern the Dutch version of the Achilles Tendon Total Rupture Score, EQ-5D-5 L, Oslo Sport Trauma Research Center Overuse Injury Questionnaire, Injury Psychological Readiness Return to Sport Scale, Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia, Expectations, Motivation and Satisfaction questionnaire and a ranking of reasons for not returning to sport. The administered physical tests are the heel-rise test, standing dorsiflexion range of motion, resting tendon length and single leg hop for distance. Ultrasound Tissue Characterization will be used for imaging. Finally, economic data will be collected using the Productivity Cost Questionnaire and Medical Consumption Questionnaire. DISCUSSION: This prospective cohort study will contribute to optimal decision making in the primary treatment and rehabilitation of ATRs by providing insight into (1) ATR recovery (2) novel imaging for monitoring recovery (3) (barriers to) return to sport and (4) cost-effectiveness of management. The analysis of these data strives to give a broad insight into the recovery after ATR as well as provide data on novel imaging and costs, contributing to individualized ATR management. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trialregister.nl. NTR6484 . 20/06/2017. 20/07/2017.

Use of gentamicin-impregnated beads or sponges in the treatment of early acute periprosthetic joint infection: a propensity score analysis.

Objectives: Early acute periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) treated with debridement, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR) have failure rates ranging from 10% to 60%. We determined the efficacy of applying local gentamicin-impregnated beads and/or sponges during debridement in early PJI. Methods: Patients with early acute PJI, defined as less than 21 days of symptoms and treated with DAIR within 90 days after index surgery, were retrospectively evaluated. Early failure was defined as PJI-related death, the need for implant removal or a second DAIR or antibiotic suppressive therapy owing to persistent signs of infection, all within 60 days after initial debridement. Overall failure was defined as implant removal at any timepoint during follow-up. A 1:1 propensity score matching was performed to correct for confounding factors. Results: A total of 386 patients were included. Local gentamicin was applied in 293 patients (75.9%) and was withheld in 93 patients (24.1%). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that the use of local gentamicin was independently associated with early failure (OR = 1.97, 95% CI = 1.12-3.48). After propensity matching, early failure was 40.3% in the gentamicin group versus 26.0% in the control group (P = 0.06) and overall failure was 5.2% in the gentamicin group versus 2.6% in the control group (P = 0.40). These numbers remained when solely analysing the application of gentamicin-impregnated sponges. Conclusions: Even after propensity score matching, failure rates remained higher if local gentamicin-impregnated beads and/or sponges were administered in early acute PJI. Based on these results, their use should be discouraged.

Predicting Failure in Early Acute Prosthetic Joint Infection Treated With Debridement, Antibiotics, and Implant Retention: External Validation of the KLIC Score.

BACKGROUND: Debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) is a widely used treatment modality for early acute prosthetic joint infection (PJI). A preoperative risk score was previously designed for predicting DAIR failure, consisting of chronic renal failure (K), liver cirrhosis (L), index surgery (I), cemented prosthesis (C), and C-reactive protein >115 mg/L (KLIC). The aim of this study was to validate the KLIC score in an external cohort. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated patients with early acute PJI treated with DAIR between 2006 and 2016 in 3 Dutch hospitals. Early acute PJI was defined as <21 days of symptoms and DAIR performed within 90 days after index surgery. Failure was defined as the need for (1) second DAIR, (2) implant removal, (3) suppressive antimicrobial treatment, or (4) infection-related death within 60 days after debridement. RESULTS: A total of 386 patients were included. Failure occurred in 148 patients (38.3%). Patients with KLIC scores of ≤2, 2.5-3.5, 4-5, 5.5-6.5, and ≥7 had failure rates of 27.9%, 37.1%, 49.3%, 54.5%, and 85.7%, respectively (P < .001). The receiver-operating characteristic curve showed an area under the curve of 0.64 (95% confidence interval 0.59-0.69). A KLIC score higher than 6 points showed a specificity of 97.9%. CONCLUSION: The KLIC score is a relatively good preoperative risk score for DAIR failure in patients with early acute PJI and appears to be most useful in clinical practice for patients with low or high KLIC scores.

Similar Superior Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Anterior and Posterolateral Approaches After Total Hip Arthroplasty: Postoperative Patient-Reported Outcome Measure Improvement After 3 months in 12,774 Primary Total Hip Arthroplasties Using the Anterior, Anterolateral, Straight Lateral, or Posterolateral Approach.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are used to evaluate the outcome of total hip arthroplasty (THA). We determined the effect of surgical approach on PROMs after primary THA. METHODS: All primary THAs, with registered preoperative and 3 months postoperative PROMs were selected from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register. Based on surgical approach, 4 groups were discerned: (direct) anterior, anterolateral, direct lateral, and posterolateral approaches. The following PROMs were recorded: Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Physical function Short form (HOOS-PS); Oxford Hip Score; EQ-5D index score; EQ-5D thermometer; and Numeric Rating Scale measuring pain, both active and in rest. The difference between preoperative and postoperative scores was calculated (delta-PROM) and used as primary outcome measure. Multivariable linear regression analysis was performed for comparisons. Cohen's d was calculated as measure of effect size. RESULTS: All examined 4 approaches resulted in a significant increase of PROMs after primary THA in the Netherlands (n = 12,274). The anterior and posterolateral approaches were associated with significantly more improvement in HOOS-PS scores compared with the anterolateral and direct lateral approaches. Furthermore, the posterolateral and anterior approaches showed greater improvement on Numeric Rating Scale pain scores compared with the anterolateral approach. No relevant differences in delta-PROM were seen between the anterior and posterolateral surgical approaches. CONCLUSION: Anterior and posterolateral surgical approaches showed more improvement in self-reported physical functioning (HOOS-PS) compared with anterolateral and direct lateral approaches in patients receiving a primary THA. However, clinical differences were only small.

The effect of bearing type on the outcome of total hip arthroplasty.

Background and purpose - Alternative bearing surfaces such as ceramics and highly crosslinked polyethylene (HXLPE) were developed in order to further improve implant performance of total hip arthroplasties (THAs). Whether these alternative bearing surfaces result in increased longevity is subject to debate. Patients and methods - Using the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI), we identified all patients with a primary, non-metal-on-metal THA implanted in the Netherlands in the period 2007-2016 (n = 209,912). Cumulative incidence of revision was calculated to determine differences in survivorship of THAs according to bearing type: metal-on-polyethylene (MoPE), metal-on-HXLPE (MoHXLPE), ceramic-on-polyethylene (CoPE), ceramic-on-HXLPE (CoHXLPE), ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC), and oxidized-zirconium-on-(HXL)polyethylene (Ox(HXL)PE). Multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression ratios (HRs) were used for comparisons. Results - After adjustment for confounders, CoHXLPE, CoC, and Ox(HXL)PE resulted in a statistically significantly lower risk of revision compared with MoPE after 9 years follow-up (HR =0.8-0.9 respectively, compared with HR =1.0). For small (22-28 mm) femoral head THAs, lower revision rates were found for CoPE and CoHXLPE (HR =0.9). In the 36 mm femoral head subgroup, CoC-bearing THAs had a lower HR compared with MoHXLPE (HR =0.7 versus 1.0). Crude revision rates in young patients (< 60 years) for CoHXLPE, CoC, and Ox(HXL)PE (HR =0.7) were lower than MoPE (HR =1.0). However, after adjustment for case mix and confounders these differences were not statistically significant. Interpretation - We found a mid-term lower risk of revision for CoHXLPE, CoC, and Ox(HXL)PE bearings compared with traditional MoPE-bearing surfaces.