Selective Use of Modern Cementless Total Knee Arthroplasty is Not Associated with Increased Risk of Revision in Patients Aged 65 or Greater: An Analysis from the American Joint Replacement Registry.

Modern highly porous surfaces have increased confidence and use of cementless total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in the United States. As cementless TKA use increases, there remains a paucity of literature regarding associated risk of revision in patients aged ≥65 years. We analyzed the American Joint Replacement Registry (AJRR) data from January 2012 to March 2020 identifying patients aged ≥65 years undergoing primary TKA with linked cases to supplemental centers for Medicare and Medicaid data. Patients with hybrid fixation, reverse hybrid fixation, missing component data, highly constrained implants, and stem extension/augmentation were excluded. We identified 442,745 cemented TKAs and 19,841 modern cementless TKAs with a minimum of 2-year follow-up. Cumulative incident function (CIF) curves and cause-specific Cox models evaluated the risk of all-cause revision and revision for mechanical loosening, adjusting for body mass index (BMI), sex, age, cruciate retaining (CR) versus posterior stabilized (PS) femoral design, patellar resurfacing, and Charlson's comorbidity index (CCI). Patients with cementless compared with cemented TKA were younger (mean age: 71.9 vs. 73.2 years, p < 0.001), more likely to be male sex (48.8 vs. 39.0%, p < 0.001), more likely to have a CR femoral design (81.1 vs. 45.7%, p < 0.001), less likely to have patellar resurfacing (92.7 vs. 95.0%, p < 0.001), and had a lower CCI (mean: 2.9 vs. 3.1, p < 0.001). Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) showed no difference in associated risk for all-cause revision (HR: 1.07; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.92-1.24; p = 0.382) or revision for mechanical loosening (HR: 1.38; 95% CI: 0.9-2.12; p = 0.14) for cementless versus cemented TKA. Our results suggest that current selective use of cementless fixation for TKA in patients aged ≥65 years in the United States is not associated with an increased risk of revision. While encouraging, further study is necessary to establish indications for use in this age group prior to broader adoption in this patient population. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III.

Femoral Component Design Is Associated With the Risk of Periprosthetic Femur Fracture After Cementless THA in Patients 65 Years or Older.

BACKGROUND: Periprosthetic femur fracture is a known complication after THA. The associated risk of cementless femoral component design for periprosthetic femur fracture in a registry population of patients older than 65 years has yet to be clearly identified. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Is femoral stem geometry associated with the risk of periprosthetic femur fracture after cementless THA? (2) Is the presence or absence of a collar on cementless femoral implant designs associated with the risk of periprosthetic femur fracture after THA? METHODS: We analyzed American Joint Replacement Registry data from 2012 to March 2020. Unique to this registry is the high use of cementless femoral stems in patients 65 years and older. We identified 266,040 primary cementless THAs during the study period in patients with a diagnosis of osteoarthritis and surgeries linked to supplemental Centers for Medicare and Medicaid data where available. Patient demographics, procedure dates, and reoperation for periprosthetic femur fracture with revision or open reduction and internal fixation were recorded. The main analysis was performed comparing the Kheir and Chen classification: 42% (112,231 of 266,040) were single-wedge, 22% (57,758 of 266,040) were double-wedge, and 24% (62,983 of 266,040) were gradual taper/metadiaphyseal-filling cementless femoral components, which yielded a total of 232,972 primary cementless THAs. An additional analysis compared cementless stems with collars (20% [47,376 of 232,972]) with those with collarless designs (80% [185,596 of 232,972]). A Cox proportional hazard regression analysis with the competing risk of death was used to evaluate the association of design and fracture risk while adjusting for potential confounders. RESULTS: After controlling for the potentially confounding variables of age, sex, geographic region, osteoporosis or osteopenia diagnosis, hospital volume, and the competing risk of death, we found that compared with gradual taper/metadiaphyseal-filling stems, single-wedge designs were associated with a greater risk of periprosthetic femur fracture (HR 2.9 [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.2 to 3.9]; p < 0. 001). Compared with gradual taper/metadiaphyseal-filling stems, double-wedge designs showed an increased risk of periprosthetic femur fracture (HR 3.0 [95% CI 2.2 to 4.0]; p < 0. 001). Collarless stems showed an increased risk of periprosthetic fracture compared with collared stems (HR 7.8 [95% CI 4.1 to 15]; p < 0. 001). CONCLUSION: If cementless femoral fixation is used for THA in patients 65 years or older, surgeons should consider using gradual taper/metadiaphyseal-filling and collared stem designs because they are associated with a lower risk of periprosthetic femur fracture. Future investigations should compare gradual taper/metadiaphyseal-filling and collared cementless designs with cemented fixation in this population. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Outcomes Vary Significantly Using a Tiered Approach To Define Success After Total Hip Arthroplasty.

Background: Clinical outcomes following primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) are commonly assessed through patient-reported outcome measures (PROM). The purpose of this study was to use progressively more stringent definitions of success to evaluate clinical outcomes of primary THA at 1-year postoperatively and to determine if demographic variables were associated with achievement of clinical success. Methods: The American Joint Replacement Registry (AJRR) was queried from 2012-2020 for primary THA. Patients that completed the following PROMs preoperatively and 1-year postoperatively were included: Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC), Hip Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS) and HOOS for Joint Replacement (HOOS, JR). Mean PROM scores were determined for each visit and between-visit changes were evaluated using paired t-tests. Rates of achievement of minimal clinically important difference (MCID) by distribution-based and anchor-based criteria, patient acceptable symptom state (PASS), and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) were calculated. Logistic regression was used to evaluate associations between demographic variables and odds of success. Results: 7,001 THAs were included. Mean improvement in PROM scores were: HOOS, JR, 37; WOMAC-Pain, 39; WOMAC-Function, 41 (p<0.0001 for all). Rates of achievement of each metric were: distribution-based MCID, 88-93%; anchor-based MCID, 68-90%; PASS, 47-84%; SCB, 68-84%. Age and sex were the most influential demographic factors on achievement of clinical success. Conclusion: There is significant variability in clinical outcomes at 1 year after primary THA when using a tiered approach to define success from the patient's perspective. Tiered approaches to interpretation of PROMs should be considered for future research and clinical assessment. Level of Evidence: III.

Surgeon input can increase the value of registry data: early experience from the American Spine Registry.

OBJECTIVE: Clear diagnostic delineation is necessary for the development of a strong evidence base in lumbar spinal surgery. Experience with existing national databases suggests that International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Edition (ICD-10) coding is insufficient to support that need. The purpose of this study was to assess agreement between surgeon-specified diagnostic indication and hospital-reported ICD-10 codes for lumbar spine surgery. METHODS: Data collection for the American Spine Registry (ASR) includes an option to denote the surgeon's specific diagnostic indication for each procedure. For cases treated between January 2020 and March 2022, surgeon-delineated diagnosis was compared with the ICD-10 diagnosis generated by standard ASR electronic medical record data extraction. For decompression-only cases, the primary analysis focused on the etiology of neural compression as determined by the surgeon versus that determined on the basis of the related ICD-10 codes extracted from the ASR database. For lumbar fusion cases, the primary analysis compared structural pathology, which may have required fusion, as determined by the surgeon versus that determined on the basis of the extracted ICD-10 codes. This allowed for identification of agreement between surgeon delineation and extracted ICD-10 codes. RESULTS: In 5926 decompression-only cases, agreement between the surgeon and ASR ICD-10 codes was 89% for spinal stenosis and 78% for lumbar disc herniation and/or radiculopathy. Both the surgeon and database indicated no structural pathology (i.e., none) suggesting the need for fusion in 88% of cases. In 5663 lumbar fusion cases, agreement was 76% for spondylolisthesis but poor for other diagnostic indications. CONCLUSIONS: Agreement between surgeon-specified diagnostic indication and hospital-reported ICD-10 codes was best for patients who underwent decompression only. In the fusion cases, agreement with ICD-10 codes was best in the spondylolisthesis group (76%). In cases other than spondylolisthesis, agreement was poor due to multiple diagnoses or lack of an ICD-10 code that reflected the pathology. This study suggested that standard ICD-10 codes may be inadequate to clearly define the indications for decompression or fusion in patients with lumbar degenerative disease.

Representativeness of the American Spine Registry: a comparison of patient characteristics with the National Inpatient Sample.

OBJECTIVE: The American Spine Registry (ASR) is a collaborative effort between the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and the American Association of Neurological Surgeons. The goal of this study was to evaluate how representative the ASR is of the national practice with spinal procedures, as recorded in the National Inpatient Sample (NIS). METHODS: The authors queried the NIS and the ASR for cervical and lumbar arthrodesis cases performed during 2017-2019. International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision and Current Procedural Terminology codes were used to identify patients undergoing cervical and lumbar procedures. The two groups were compared for the overall proportion of cervical and lumbar procedures, age distribution, sex, surgical approach features, race, and hospital volume. Outcomes available in the ASR, such as patient-reported outcomes and reoperations, were not analyzed due to nonavailability in the NIS. The representativeness of the ASR compared to the NIS was assessed via Cohen's d effect sizes, and absolute standardized mean differences (SMDs) of < 0.2 were considered trivial, whereas > 0.5 were considered moderately large. RESULTS: A total of 24,800 arthrodesis procedures were identified in the ASR for the period between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2019. During the same time period, 1,305,360 cases were recorded in the NIS. Cervical fusions comprised 35.9% of the ASR cohort (8911 cases) and 36.0% of the NIS cohort (469,287 cases). The two databases presented trivial differences in terms of patient age and sex for all years of interest across both cervical and lumbar arthrodeses (SMD < 0.2). Trivial differences were also noted in the distribution of open versus percutaneous procedures of the cervical and lumbar spine (SMD < 0.2). Among lumbar cases, anterior approaches were more common in the ASR than in the NIS (32.1% vs 22.3%, SMD = 0.22), but the discrepancy among cervical cases in the two databases was trivial (SMD = 0.03). Small differences were illustrated in terms of race, with SMDs < 0.5, and a more significant discrepancy was identified in the geographic distribution of participating sites (SMDs of 0.7 and 0.74 for cervical and lumbar cases, respectively). For both of these measures, SMDs in 2019 were smaller than those in 2018 and 2017. CONCLUSIONS: The ASR and NIS databases presented a very high similarity in proportions of cervical and lumbar spine surgeries, as well as similar distributions of age and sex, and distribution of open versus endoscopic approach. Slight discrepancies in anterior versus posterior approach among lumbar cases and patient race, and more significant discrepancies in geographic representation were also identified, yet decreasing trends in differences suggested the improving representativeness of the ASR over the course of time and its progressive growth. These conclusions are important to underline the external validity of quality investigations and research conclusions to be drawn from analyses in which the ASR is used.

Cemented Femoral Fixation in Total Hip Arthroplasty Reduces the Risk of Periprosthetic Femur Fracture in Patients 65 Years and Older: An Analysis From the American Joint Replacement Registry.

BACKGROUND: Periprosthetic femur fracture (PPFx) is a devastating complication after total hip arthroplasty (THA). Despite concerns for increased PPFx, cementless fixation predominates in the United States. This study used the American Joint Replacement Registry to compare PPFx risk between cemented and cementless femoral fixation for THA. METHODS: An analysis of primary THA cases in patients aged 65 years and more was performed with the American Joint Replacement Registry data linked to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services data from 2012 to 2020. Analyses compared cemented to cementless femoral fixation. We identified 279,052 primary THAs, 266,040 (95.3%) with cementless and 13,012 (4.7%) with cemented femoral fixation. Cox proportional hazard regression analyses evaluated the association of fixation and PPFx risk, while adjusting for sex, age, and competing risk of mortality. Cumulative incidence function survival curves evaluated time to PPFx. RESULTS: Age ≥ 80 years (P < .0001) and women (P < .0001) were associated with PPFx. Compared to cemented stems, cementless stems had an elevated risk of PPFx (Hazards Ratio 7.70, 95% Confidence interval 3.2-18.6, P < .0001). The cumulative incidence function curves demonstrated an increased risk for PPFx across all time points for cementless stems, with equal magnitude of risk to 8 years.` CONCLUSION: Cementless femoral fixation in THA continues to predominate in the United States, with cementless femoral fixation demonstrating increased risk of PPFx in patients aged 65 years or more. Surgeons should consider greater use of cemented femoral fixation in this population to decrease the risk of PPFx.

Spinal Versus General Anesthesia in Total Knee Arthroplasty: Are There Differences in Complication and Readmission Rates?

BACKGROUND: Spinal anesthesia (SP) utilization continues to expand in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). However, little is known regarding differences in complication rates between spinal and general anesthesia used for primary TKA. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to compare the length of stay (LOS), operative time, and readmission and revision rates between patients who received spinal and general anesthesia during TKA. METHODS: The American Joint Replacement Registry (AJRR) was used to identify primary elective TKA patients from 2017 to 2020. Patients were divided into 2 cohorts, general (GN) and SP, based on the mode of anesthesia administered during the index surgery. In total, 270,251 TKAs were identified, of which 126,970 (47.0%) received general anesthesia and 143,281 (53.0%) received spinal anesthesia. Length of stay, operative time, 90-day readmission, and 90-day revisions were compared between the 2 groups. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to adjust for potential confounders. RESULTS: After accounting for confounding factors, SP was associated with a lower risk of having a LOS greater than 3 days (odds ratio [OR] 0.470, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.454-0.487, P < .0001), but a slightly higher likelihood of having a longer operative time (OR 1.075, 95% CI 1.056-1.094, P < .0001). SP was also linked to lower rates of 90-day readmission (OR 0.845, 95% CI 0.790-0.904, P < .0001) and lower risk of 90-day all-cause revision (OR 0.506, 95% CI 0.462-0.555, P < .0001). CONCLUSION: SP was associated with a lower 90-day readmission rate and a lower risk of 90-day revision. These findings support the best practice guidelines of The Joint Commission to use spinal anesthesia when possible as part of an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathway.

The James A. Rand Young Investigator's Award: Increased Revision Risk With Mobile Bearings in Total Knee Arthroplasty: An Analysis of the American Joint Replacement Registry.

BACKGROUND: Mobile-bearing (MB) total knee arthroplasty (TKA) may reduce wear and improve patellar tracking but may increase revision risk due to tibial component design, balance complexity, and bearing dislocation. We utilized the American Joint Replacement Registry to examine risk of revision with MB compared to fixed-bearing (FB) designs. METHODS: An analysis of primary TKA in patients over 65 years was performed with American Joint Replacement Registry data linked to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services data from 2012 to 2019. Analyses compared MB to FB designs with a subanalysis of implants from a single company. We identified 485,024 TKAs, with 452,199 (93.2%) FB-TKAs and 32,825 (6.8%) MB-TKAs. Cox proportional hazards regression modeling was used for all-cause revision and revision for infection, adjusting for sex, age, and competing risk of mortality. Event-free survival curves evaluated time to all-cause revision and revision for infection. RESULTS: MB-TKAs were at an increased risk for all-cause revision: hazard ratio (HR) 1.36 ([95% confidence interval (CI) 1.24-1.49], P < .0001) but not revision for infection: HR 1.06 ([95% CI 0.90-1.25], P = .52). When comparing implants within a single company, MB-TKAs were at an increased risk of all-cause revision: HR 1.55 ([95% CI 1.38-1.73], P < .0001). Event-free survival curves demonstrated increased risk for all-cause revision for MB-TKA across all time points, with a greater magnitude of risk up to 8 years. CONCLUSION: Although survivorship of both designs was outstanding, MB-TKA designs demonstrated increased risk for all-cause revision. Additional investigation is needed to determine if this is related to patient selection factors, surgical technique, bearing, or implant design.

Racial Disparities in Rates of Revision and use of Modern Features in Total Knee Arthroplasty, a National Registry Study.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of our study was to investigate the association of race and ethnicity with rates of modern implant use and postoperative outcomes in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) using the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons American Joint Replacement Registry. METHODS: Adult TKAs from 2012 to 2020 were queried from the American Joint Replacement Registry. A total of 1,121,457 patients were available for analysis for surgical features and 1,068,210 patients for analysis of outcomes. Mixed-effects multivariable logistic regression models were used to examine the association of race with each individual surgical feature (unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) and robotic-assisted TKA (RA-TKA)) and 30- and 90-day readmission. A proportional subdistribution hazard model was used to model the risk of revision TKA. RESULTS: On multivariate analyses, compared to White patients, Black (odds ratio (OR): 0.52 P < .0001), Hispanic (OR 0.75 P < .001), and Native American (OR: 0.69 P = .0011) patients had lower rates of UKA, while only Black patients had lower rates of RA-TKA (OR = 0.76 P < .001). White (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.8, P < .001), Asian (HR = 0.51, P < .001), and Hispanic-White (HR = 0.73, P = .001) patients had a lower risk of revision TKA than Black patients. Asian patients had a lower revision risk than White (HR = 0.64, P < .001) and Hispanic-White (HR = 0.69, P = .011) patients. No significant differences existed between groups for 30- or 90-day readmissions. CONCLUSION: Black, Hispanic, and Native American patients had lower rates of UKA compared to White patients, while Black patients had lower rates of RA-TKA compared to White, Asian, and Hispanic patients. Black patients also had higher rates of revision TKA than other races.

The Influence of Femoral Fixation on Mortality and Revision After Hip Arthroplasty in Femoral Neck Fractures in Patients Older Than 65 Years. A Matched Cohort Analysis From the American Joint Replacement Registry.

INTRODUCTION: In the United States, most hip arthroplasties for femoral neck fractures are done with a noncemented stem despite worldwide registry data suggesting that cemented fixation has improved long-term survivorship in patients older than 65 years. We, therefore, evaluated the effect of femoral fixation on the risk of revision, revision for periprosthetic fracture (PPFx), and mortality in patients undergoing hip arthroplasty for femoral neck fractures. METHODS: Seventeen thousand one hundred thirty-eight cases of cemented femoral stems were exactly matched to noncemented fixation cases in a 1:1 fashion based on age, sex, and Charlson Comorbidity Index as reported in the American Joint Replacement Registry. Outcome variables included revision for PPFx, all-cause revision within 1 year and 90 days, and in-hospital mortality at 90 days and 1 year. The primary independent variable was femoral fixation (cemented and noncemented), and covariates included race (black, white, and others), ethnicity (Hispanic and non-Hispanic), hospital teaching status (minor, major, and nonteaching), and hospital size (number of beds: 1 to 99, 100 to 399, and ≥400). Chi square tests and multivariable logistic regression models were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Hip arthroplasty with a cemented stem was associated with a 30% reduction in all-cause revision at 90 days (odds ratio [OR]:0.692, confidence interval [CI]:0.558 to 0.86), a 29% reduction in revision at 1 year (OR:0.709, CI:0.589 to 0.854), and an 86% reduction in revision for PPFx (OR:0.144, CI:0.07 to 0.294). However, cemented stem fixation was associated with increased odds of in-hospital (OR: 2.232 CI: 1.644 to 3.3031), 90-day, and 1-year (OR:1.23, CI:1.135 to 1.339; and OR:1.168, CI:1.091 to 1.25, respectively) mortality. DICUSSION: In this exact match study, cemented stem fixation for femoral neck fracture was associated with a markedly reduced risk of revision for PPFx and for all-cause revision. This must be weighed against the associated increased risk in mortality, which warrants additional investigation.

Lower Rates of Ceramic Femoral Head Use in Non-White Patients in the United States, a National Registry Study.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of our study was to investigate the association of race and ethnicity with the use of the newest technology and postoperative outcomes in total hip arthroplasty (THA) using the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) American Joint Replacement Registry (AJRR). METHODS: Adult THA procedures were queried from the AJRR from 2012 to 2020. A mixed-effects multivariate regression model was used to evaluate the association of race and ethnicity with the use of the newest technology (ceramic femoral head, dual-mobility implant, and robotic assist) at 30-day, and 90-day readmission. A proportional subdistribution hazard model was used to model a risk of revision THA. RESULTS: There were 85,188 THAs with complete data for an analysis of outcomes and 103,218 for an analysis of ceramic head usage. The median length of follow-up was 37.9 months (interquartile range [IQR] 21.6 to 56.3 months). In multivariate models, compared to White non-Hispanic patients, Black (odds ratio [OR] 0.79, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.69-0.92, P < .001), Hispanic (OR 0.76, CI 0.59-0.99, P = .037), Asian (OR 0.74, CI 0.55-1.00, P = .045), and Native American (OR 0.52, CI 0.30-0.87, P = .004) patients all had significantly lower rates of ceramic head use in THA. Compared to White non-Hispanic patients, Asian (hazard ratio [HR] 0.39, CI 0.18-0.86, P = .008) and Hispanic (HR 0.43, CI 0.19-0.98, P = .043) patients had significantly lower rates of revision. No differences in 30-day or 90-day readmission rates were seen. CONCLUSION: Black, Hispanic, Native American, and Asian patients had lower rates of ceramic head use in THA when compared to White patients. These differences did not translate into worse clinical outcomes on a short-term follow-up. In fact, Asian patients had lower revision rates compared to non-Hispanic White patients. Additional study is necessary to evaluate the long-term consequence of lower ceramic head use in non-White patients in the United States.

Outcomes Vary Significantly Using a Tiered Approach to Define Success After Total Knee Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) allow assessment of clinical outcomes following primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The purpose of this study is to use progressively more stringent definitions of success to examine clinical outcomes of primary TKA at 1 year postoperatively and to determine which demographic variables were associated with achieving clinical success. METHODS: The American Joint Replacement Registry was queried from 2012 to 2020 for primary TKA. Patients who completed the following PROMs preoperatively and 1 year postoperatively were included: Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC), Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), and KOOS for Joint Replacement (KOOS JR). Mean PROM scores were determined for each visit and between-visit changes were evaluated using paired t-tests. Rates of achievement of minimal clinically important difference (MCID) by distribution-based and anchor-based criteria, Patient Acceptable Symptom State, and substantial clinical benefit were calculated. Logistic regression was used to evaluate the association between demographic variables and odds of clinical success. RESULTS: In total, 12,341 TKAs were included. Mean improvement in PROM scores were as follows: KOOS JR, 29; WOMAC-Pain, 33; and WOMAC-Function, 31 (P < .0001 for all). Rates of achievement of each metric were the following: distribution-based MCID, 84%-87%; anchor-based MCID, 46%-79%; Patient Acceptable Symptom State, 54%-82%; and substantial clinical benefit, 68%-81%. Patient age and gender were the most influential demographic factors on achievement of clinical success. CONCLUSION: Clinical outcomes at 1 year following TKA vary significantly when using a tiered approach to define success. A tiered approach to interpretation of PROMs should be considered for future research and clinical assessment.

The Effect of Femoral Fixation on Revision and Mortality Following Elective Total Hip Arthroplasty in Patients Over the Age of 65 years. An Analysis of the American Joint Replacement Registry.

BACKGROUND: With the overwhelming use of cementless femoral fixation for primary total hip arthroplasty in the United States, the associations of stem fixation on the risk of revision and mortality are poorly understood. We evaluated the relationship between femoral fixation and risk of revision and mortality in patients included in the American Joint Replacement Registry. METHODS: Elective, primary, unilateral total hip arthroplasties in the American Joint Replacement Registry, in patients over the age of 65 years were considered. In total, 9,612 patients with a cemented stem were exact matched 1:1 with patients who received a cementless stem based on age, gender, and the Charlson Comorbidity Index. Outcomes compared between the groups included need and reason for revision at 90 days and 1 year; in-hospital, 90-day, and 1-year mortality; and mortality after early revision. Covariates were used in linear regression analyses. RESULTS: Cemented fixation was associated with a 37% reduction in the risk of 90-day revision, and a reduction in the risk of revision for periprosthetic fracture of 87% at 90 days and 81% at 1 year. Cemented fixation was associated with increased 90-day and 1-year mortality (odds ratio [OR] 3.15, confidence interval [CI] 2.24-4.43 and OR 2.36, CI 1.86-3.01, respectively). Patients who underwent subsequent revision surgery within the first year exhibited the highest mortality risk (OR 3.23, CI 1.05-9.97). CONCLUSION: In this representative sample of the United States, 90-day revision for any reason and for periprosthetic fracture was significantly reduced in patients with a cemented stem. This benefit must be weighed against the association with increased mortality and with the high risk of mortality associated with early revision, which was more prevalent with cementless fixation.

Modular Metal-Backed Tibial Components Provide Minimal Mid-Term Survivorship Benefits Despite Increased Cost and Frequency of Use: A Retrospective Review of the American Joint Replacement Registry Database.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have demonstrated equivalent survivorship of modular metal-backed tibial (MBT) and all-polyethylene tibial (APT) components. The purpose of this study is to compare the utilization and outcomes of APT and MBT components in a large US database. METHODS: The American Joint Replacement Registry was queried to identify all patients undergoing primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) during the study period from 2012 to 2019. These patients were divided into cohorts based on tibial component (APT or MBT). Cohort demographics including gender, hospital size, hospital teaching status, region, age, and Charlson Comorbidity Index were reported with descriptive statistics. Overall reoperation rates and revisions for infection, aseptic loosening, periprosthetic fracture, manipulation under anesthesia, and revision for other reasons were identified using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision and Current Procedural Terminology codes and compared across APT and MBT cohorts. Kaplan-Meir survival analysis was performed based on reason for reoperation for APT and MBT. RESULTS: During the study period, 703,007 TKAs were reported with 97.8% utilizing MBT and 2.2% utilizing APT components. Despite the introduction of alternative payment models during the study period, the utilization of APT decreased from 5.8% in 2012 to 1.7% in 2019. The survival of APT and MBT TKAs were similar across the study period: 98.1% vs 98.6% at 8 years. The rate of reoperation for all-causes was higher for APT compared to MBT (1.36% vs 1.00%; odds ratio 1.52). CONCLUSION: Despite their paucity of use and lower cost APT remained within a 0.4% margin of survivorship when compared to MBT implants for up to 8 years. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective.

Effects of Hospital and Surgeon Volume on Patient Outcomes After Total Joint Arthroplasty: Reported From the American Joint Replacement Registry.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate outcomes and complications because it relates to surgeon and hospital volume for patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) using the American Joint Replacement Registry from 2012 to 2017. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted on Medicare-eligible cases of primary elective THAs and TKAs reported to the American Joint Replacement Registry database and was linked with the available Centers of Medicaid and Medicare Services claims and the National Death Index data from 2012 to 2017. Surgeon and hospital volume were defined separately based on the median annual number of anatomic-specific total arthroplasty procedures performed on patients of any age per surgeon and per hospital. Values were aggregated into separate surgeon and hospital volume tertile groupings and combined to create pairwise comparison surgeon/hospital volume groupings for hip and knee. RESULTS: Adjusted multivariable logistic regression analysis found low surgeon/low hospital volume to have the greatest association with all-cause revisions after THA (odds ratio [OR], 1.63, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.41-1.89, P < 0.0001) and TKA (OR, 1.72, 95% CI, 1.44-2.06, P < 0.0001), early revisions because of periprosthetic joint infection after THA (OR, 2.50, 95% CI, 1.53-3.15, P < 0.0001) and TKA (OR, 2.18, 95% CI, 1.64-2.89, P < 0.0001), risk of early THA instability and dislocation (OR, 2.47, 95% CI, 1.77-3.46, P < 0.0001), and 90-day mortality after THA (OR, 1.72, 95% CI, 1.27-2.35, P = 0.0005) and TKA (OR, 1.47, 95% CI, 1.15-1.86, P = 0.002). CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrate considerably greater THA and TKA complications when performed at low-volume hospitals by low-volume surgeons. Given the data from previous literature including this study, a continued push through healthcare policies and healthcare systems is warranted to direct THA and TKA procedures to high-volume centers by high-volume surgeons because of the evident decrease in complications and considerable costs associated with all-cause revisions, periprosthetic joint infection, instability, and 90-day mortality. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Use of Cementless Metaphyseal Fixation in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Fixation options for revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) have expanded and now include cementless metaphyseal fixation. The utilization rates of these implants in the United States are not well known. The purpose of this study was to analyze trends in cementless metaphyseal fixation for rTKA within the American Joint Replacement Registry (AJRR). METHODS: The AJRR was queried for the years 2015-2019 to identify all rTKA with implant data. Trends in the use of cementless sleeves, metaphyseal cones, and any cementless metaphyseal fixation (sleeves + cones) were examined over the study period using logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Twenty thousand two hundred and eighty rTKA were analyzed. Cementless metaphyseal fixation was used in 16% of rTKA and significantly increased over the study period (14% to 19%, P < .0001). Cementless metaphyseal fixation was more frequently utilized during revision for aseptic loosening than other diagnoses (OR 1.014, 95% CI 1.001-1.027). Cementless sleeve utilization decreased over time (11% to 9%, P = .004), driven by decreased use on the femur (4% to 2%, P < .0001). The use of cones increased significantly over time (3% to 9%, P < .0001), driven by increased use on the tibia (2% to 9%, P < .0001). Cones were 22 times more likely to be utilized on the tibia relative to the femur (P < .0001) and were more likely to be used in revisions for infection (OR 1.103, 95% CI 1.089-1.117) and aseptic loosening (OR 1.764, 95% CI 1.728-1.800). CONCLUSION: Cementless metaphyseal fixation has grown in popularity yet, still comprised only 16% of rTKA over a 5-year period. Most of the increase was due to the utilization of tibial metaphyseal cones.

Cementless Fixation Is Associated With Increased Risk of Early and All-Time Revision After Hemiarthroplasty But Not After THA for Femoral Neck Fracture: Results From the American Joint Replacement Registry.

BACKGROUND: Despite ample evidence supporting cemented femoral fixation for both hemiarthroplasty and THA for surgical treatment of displaced femoral neck fractures, cementless fixation is the preferred fixation method in the United States. To our knowledge, no nationally representative registry from the United States has compared revision rates by fixation for this surgical treatment. QUESTION/PURPOSE: After controlling for relevant confounding variables, is femoral fixation method (cemented or cementless) in hemiarthroplasty or THA for femoral neck fracture associated with a greater risk of (1) all-cause revision or (2) revision for periprosthetic fracture? METHODS: Patients with Medicare insurance who had femoral neck fractures treated with hemiarthroplasty or THA reported in the American Joint Replacement Registry database from 2012 to 2017 and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services claims data from 2012 to 2017 were analyzed in this retrospective, large-database study. Of the 37,201 hemiarthroplasties, 42% (15,748) used cemented fixation and 58% (21,453) used cementless fixation. Of the 7732 THAs, 20% (1511) used cemented stem fixation and 80% (6221) used cementless stem fixation. For both the hemiarthroplasty and THA cohorts, most patients were women and had cementless femoral fixation. Early revision was defined as a procedure that occurred less than 90 days from the index procedure. All patients submitted to the registry were included in the analysis. Patient follow-up was limited to the study period. No patients were lost to follow-up. Due to inherent limitations with the registry, we did not compare medical complications, including deaths attributed directly to cemented fixation. A logistic regression model including the index arthroplasty, age, gender, stem fixation method, hospital size, hospital teaching affiliation, and Charlson comorbidity index score was used to determine associations between the index procedure and revision rates. RESULTS: For the hemiarthroplasty cohort, risk factors for any revision were cementless stem fixation (odds ratio 1.42 [95% confidence interval 1.20 to 1.68]; p < 0.001), younger age (OR 0.96 [95% CI 0.95 to 0.97]; p < 0.001), and higher Charlson comorbidity index (OR 1.06 [95% CI 1.02 to 1.11]; p = 0.004). Risk factors for early revision were cementless stem fixation (OR 1.77 [95% CI 1.43 to 2.20]; p < 0.001), younger age (OR 0.98 [95% CI 0.97 to 0.99]; p < 0.001), and higher Charlson comorbidity index (OR 1.09 [95% CI 1.04 to 1.15]; p < 0.001). Risk factors for revision due to periprosthetic fracture were cementless fixation (OR 6.19 [95% CI 3.08 to 12.42]; p < 0.001) and higher Charlson comorbidity index (OR 1.16 [95% CI 1.06 to 1.28]; p = 0.002). Risk factors for early revision due to periprosthetic fracture were cementless fixation (OR 7.38 [95% CI 3.17 to 17.17]; p < 0.001), major teaching hospital (OR 2.10 [95% CI 1.08 to 4.10]; p = 0.03), and higher Charlson comorbidity index (OR 1.20 [95% CI 1.09 to 1.33]; p < 0.001). For the THA cohort, there were no associations. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that cemented fixation should be the preferred technique for most patients with displaced femoral neck fractures treated with hemiarthroplasty. The fact that stem fixation method did not affect revision rates for those patients with displaced femoral neck fractures treated with THA may be due to current practice patterns in the United States. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.