Equivalent mortality after operation with sliding hip screw or intramedullary nail for trochanteric AO/OTA A1 and A2 fractures reported in the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register 2008 to 2020.

Aims: This study aimed to compare mortality in trochanteric AO/OTA A1 and A2 fractures treated with an intramedullary nail (IMN) or sliding hip screw (SHS). The primary endpoint was 30-day mortality, with secondary endpoints at 0 to 1, 2 to 7, 8 to 30, 90, and 365 days. Methods: We analyzed data from 26,393 patients with trochanteric AO/OTA A1 and A2 fractures treated with IMNs (n = 9,095) or SHSs (n = 17,298) in the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register (January 2008 to December 2020). Exclusions were made for patients aged < 60 years, pathological fractures, pre-2008 operations, contralateral hip fractures, fractures other than trochanteric A1/A2, and treatments other than IMNs or SHSs. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses adjusted for type of fracture, age, sex, cognitive impairment, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, and time period were conducted, along with calculations for number needed to harm (NNH). Results: In unadjusted analyses, there was no significant difference between IMN and SHS patient survival at 30 days (91.8% vs 91.1%; p = 0.083) or 90 days (85.4% vs 84.5%; p = 0.065), but higher one-year survival for IMNs (74.5% vs 73.3%; p = 0.031) compared with SHSs. After adjustments, no significant difference in 30-day mortality was found (hazard rate ratio (HRR) 0.94 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.02(; p = 0.146). IMNs exhibited higher mortality at 0 to 1 days (HRR 1.63 (95% CI 1.13 to 2.34); p = 0.009) compared with SHSs, with a NNH of 556, but lower mortality at 8 to 30 days (HRR 0.89 (95% CI 0.80 to 1.00); p = 0.043). No differences were observed in mortality at 2 to 7 days (HRR 0.94 (95% CI 0.79 to 1.11); p = 0.434), 90 days (HRR 0.95 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.02); p = 0.177), or 365 days (HRR 0.97 (95% CI 0.92 to 1.02); p = 0.192). Conclusion: This study found no difference in 30-day mortality between IMNs and SHSs. However, IMNs were associated with a higher mortality at 0 to 1 days and a marginally lower mortality at 8 to 30 days compared with SHSs. The observed differences in mortality were small and should probably not guide choice of treatment.

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

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

Impact of diabetes on the risk of subsequent fractures in 92,600 patients with an incident hip fracture: A Danish nationwide cohort study 2004-2018.

PURPOSE: We investigated the incidence rates of a subsequent hip fracture (HF) and other subsequent fractures than HF after first incident HF, comparing patients with and without diabetes. METHODS: Using Danish medical databases, we identified 92,600 incident HF patients in the period 2004-2018. Diabetes exposure was examined overall, by type of diabetes (T2D and T1D), and by presence of diabetes complications. We estimated cumulative incidence of subsequent HFs and fractures other than HF within two years of the incident HF. Using Cox regression, adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) with 95 % confidence interval (CI) were calculated. RESULTS: Among incident HF patients, 11,469 (12 %) had diabetes, of whom 10,253 (89 %) had T2D and 1216 (11 %) had T1D. The 2-year incidence rates for a new subsequent HF were 4.8 % (95 % CI: 4.6-4.9) for patients without diabetes (reference group), 4.1 % (95 % CI: 3.8-4.6) for T2D, and 4.3 % (95 % CI: 3.3-5.6) for T1D. Corresponding aHRs were 1.01 (95 % CI 0.90-1.14) for T2D and 1.17 (95 % CI 0.87-1.58) for T1D. There was effect modification by sex, as women with T1D had an aHR of 1.52 (95 % CI: 1.09-2.11) for subsequent HF, and by specific diabetes complications (for example, patients with T2D and prior hypoglycemia had an aHR of 1.75 (95 % CI: 1.24-2.42) for subsequent HF, while patients with T1D and neuropathy had an aHR of 1.73 (95 %: 1.09-2.75), when compared with patients without diabetes). For fractures other than HF, the 2-year incidence rates were 7.3 % (95 % CI: 7.2-7.5) for patients without diabetes, 6.6 % (95 % CI: 6.1-7.1) for T2D, and 8.5 % (95 % CI: 7.0-10.1) for T1D, with corresponding aHRs of 1.01 (95 % CI 0.92-1.11) for T2D and 1.43 (95 % CI: 1.16-1.78) for T1D. T2D was only a risk factor for other subsequent fractures among HF patients of high age (age 86-89 years: aHR 1.22 (95 % CI 0.99-1.55), age 90+ years: aHR 1.37 (95 % CI 1.08-1.74)), whereas T1D was robustly associated with increased risk of fractures other than HF in all subgroups. CONCLUSION: Among HF patients, we found no strong overall association of T2D or T1D with increased risk of subsequent HF, but diabetes patients with prior hypoglycemic events or neuropathy were at increased risk. In contrast, patients with T1D had a clearly increased risk of subsequent fractures other than HF.

Promoting cemented fixation of the femoral stem in elderly female hip arthroplasty patients and elderly hip fracture patients: a retrospective cohort study from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register and the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Uncemented stems increase the risk of revision in elderly patients. In 2018, we initiated a national quality improvement project aiming to increase the proportion of cemented stems in elderly female total hip arthroplasty (THA) and hip fracture hemiarthroplasty (HA) patients. We aimed to evaluate the association of this project on the frequency of cemented stems and the risk of secondary procedures in the targeted population. METHODS: 10,815 THAs in female patients ≥ 75 years in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register and 19,017 HAs in hip fracture patients ≥ 70 years in the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register performed in 2015-2017 and 2019-2021 at all Norwegian hospitals were included in this retrospective cohort study. The quality improvement project was implemented at 19 hospitals (8,443 patients). 1-year revision risk (THAs) and reoperation risk (HAs) were calculated for uncemented and cemented stems by Kaplan-Meier and Cox adjusted hazard rate ratios (aHRRs) with all-cause revision/reoperation as main endpoint. RESULTS: The use of cemented stem fixation in the targeted population increased from 26% to 80% for THAs and from 27% to 91% for HAs. For THAs, the 1-year revision rate decreased from 3.7% in 2015-2017 to 2.1% in 2019-2021 (aHRR 0.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.5-0.9) at the intervention hospitals. For HAs, the reoperation rate decreased from 5.9% in 2015-2017 to 3.3% in 2019-2021 (aHRR 0.6, CI 0.4-0.8) at the intervention hospitals. CONCLUSION: The quality improvement project resulted in a significant increase in the proportion of cemented stems and reduced risk of secondary procedures for both THAs and HAs.

Exercise therapy, education, and cognitive behavioral therapy alone, or in combination with total knee arthroplasty, in patients with knee osteoarthritis: a randomized feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: One in five patients experience chronic pain 1 year after total knee arthroplasty (TKA), highlighting the need for enhanced treatment strategies to improve outcomes. This feasibility trial aimed to optimize the content and delivery of a complex intervention tailored to osteoarthritis (OA) patients at risk of poor outcome after TKA and assess the feasibility of initiating a full-scale multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT). METHODS: Patients scheduled for TKA were included between August 2019 and June 2020 and block-randomized into one of three groups: (a) 12-week exercise therapy and education (ExE) and 10-module internet-delivered cognitive behavioral therapy (iCBT), (b) TKA followed by ExE and iCBT and (c) TKA and standard postoperative care. Outcomes were (i) recruitment and retention rate, (ii) compliance to the intervention and follow-up, (iii) crossover, and (iv) adverse events, reported by descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Fifteen patients were included in the study. Only 1 out of 146 patients screened for eligibility was included during the first 4 months. During the next 3 months, 117 patients were not included since they lived too far from the hospital. To increase the recruitment rate, we made three amendments to the inclusion criteria; (1) at-risk screening of poor TKA outcome was removed as an eligibility criterion, (2) patients across the country could be included in the study and (3) physiotherapists without specific certification were included, receiving thorough information and support. No patients withdrew from the study or crossed over to surgery during the first year. Nine out of 10 patients completed the ExE program and six out of 10 completed the iCBT program. Fourteen out of 15 patients completed the 1-year follow-up. One minor adverse event was registered. CONCLUSIONS: Except for recruitment and compliance to iCBT, feasibility was demonstrated. The initial recruitment process was challenging, and necessary changes were made to increase the recruitment rate. The findings informed how a definitive RCT should be undertaken to test the effectiveness of the complex intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The MultiKnee RCT, including the feasibility study, is pre-registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03771430 11/12/2018.

How good are surgeons at disclosing periprosthetic joint infection at the time of revision, based on pre- and intra-operative assessment? A study on 16,922 primary total hip arthroplasties reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Revision due to infection, as reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register (NAR), is a surrogate endpoint to periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). We aimed to find the accuracy of the reported causes of revision after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) compared with PJI to see how good surgeons were at disclosing infection, based on pre- and intraoperative assessment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We investigated the reasons for revision potentially caused by PJI following primary THA: infection, aseptic loosening, prolonged wound drainage, and pain only, reported to the NAR from surgeons in the region of Western Norway during the period 2010-2020. The electronic patient charts were investigated for information on clinical assessment, treatment, biochemistry, and microbiological findings. PJI was defined in accordance with the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) definition. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were calculated. RESULTS: 363 revisions in the NAR were eligible for analyses. Causes of revision were (reported/validated): infection (153/177), aseptic loosening (139/133), prolonged wound drainage (37/13), and pain only (34/40). The sensitivity for reported revision due to infection compared with PJI was 80%, specificity was 94%, and accuracy-the surgeons' ability to disclose PJI or non-septic revision at time of revision-was 87%. The accuracy for the specific revision causes was highest for revision due to aseptic loosening (95%) and pain only (95%), and lowest for revision due to prolonged wound drainage (86%). CONCLUSION: The accuracy of surgeon-reported revisions due to infection as representing PJI was 87% in the NAR. Our study shows the importance of systematic correction of the reported cause of revision in arthroplasty registers, after results from adequately taken bacterial samples.

Previous cartilage surgery is associated with inferior patient-reported outcomes after knee arthroplasty.

PURPOSE: The hypothesis of the present study assumed that a history of focal cartilage lesions would not affect Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome scores (KOOSs) following knee arthroplasty compared to a matched national cohort of knee arthroplasty patients. METHODS: Fifty-eight knee arthroplasty patients with previous surgery for focal cartilage lesions (cartilage cohort) were compared to a matched cohort of 116 knee arthroplasty patients from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register (control group). Age, sex, primary or revision arthroplasty, type of arthroplasty (total, unicondylar or patellofemoral), year of arthroplasty surgery and arthroplasty brand were used as matching criteria. Demographic data and KOOS were obtained through questionnaires. Regression models were employed to adjust for confounding factors. RESULTS: Mean follow-up post knee arthroplasty surgery was 7.6 years (range 1.2-20.3) in the cartilage cohort and 8.1 (range 1.0-20.9) in the control group. The responding patients were at the time of surgery 54.3 versus 59.0 years in the cartilage and control group, respectively. At follow-up the control group demonstrated higher adjusted Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome subscores than the previous focal cartilage patients with a mean adjusted difference (95% confidence interval in parentheses): Symptoms 8.4 (0.3, 16.4), Pain 11.8 (2.2, 21.4), Activities of daily living (ADL) 9.3 (-1.2, 18.6), Sport and recreation 8.9 (-1.6, 19.4) and Quality of Life (QoL) 10.6 (0.2, 21.1). The control group also demonstrated higher odds of reaching the patient-acceptable symptom state threshold for the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome subscores with odds ratio: Symptoms 2.7 (1.2, 6.4), Pain 3.0 (1.3, 7.0), ADL 2.1 (0.9, 4.6) and QoL 2.4 (1.0, 5.5). CONCLUSION: Previous cartilage surgery was associated with inferior patient-reported outcomes after knee arthroplasty. These patients also exhibited significantly lower odds of reaching the patient-acceptable symptom state threshold for the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome subscores. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

The Delta III and Delta Xtend reverse shoulder arthroplasty-risk of revision and failure mechanisms: a report on 3650 cases from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register 1994-2021.

BACKGROUND: The Delta reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) is commonly used worldwide and is the most frequently used RSA in Norway. The aim of this registry-based study was to report 10- and 20-year implant survival, risk of revision, and reasons for revision in 2 consecutive time periods for Delta III (1994-2010) and Delta Xtend (2007-2021) prostheses. METHODS: We included 3650 primary RSAs reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register: 315 Delta III (42% cemented stems) and 3335 Delta Xtend (88% cemented stems). We used Kaplan-Meier analyses to investigate implant survival. The reasons for revision were compared for the 2 designs and fixation technique. Factors that could influence the risk of revision, such as implant design, fixation technique, and patient factors, were investigated using Cox regression analyses with adjustments for age, sex, and diagnosis. RESULTS: Patients operated with Delta III were more likely to be diagnosed with inflammatory disease or fracture sequela, whereas acute fracture, osteoarthritis, and cuff arthropathy were the most frequent indications for Delta Xtend. Ten-year survival was 93.0% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 87.0-99.0) (cemented stem) and 81.6% (95% CI: 75.3-87.9) (uncemented stem) for Delta III and 94.7% (95% CI: 93.3-96.1) (cemented stem) and 95.7% (95% CI: 88.3-100) (uncemented stem) for Delta Xtend. Twenty-year survival for Delta III (uncemented stem) was 68.2% (95% CI: 58.8-77.6). Compared with DeltaXtend (cemented stem) at 10-year follow-up, we found a higher risk of revision for Delta III (uncemented stem) (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.9, 95% CI: 1.7-5.0), whereas no significant difference was found for Delta III (cemented stem) and Delta Xtend (uncemented stem). The most common reason for revision of Delta III (uncemented stem) was glenoid loosening followed by deep infection and instability. Instability was the most frequent revision cause for Delta Xtend (both cemented and uncemented stem). Men had an overall higher revision risk than women (HR: 2.8 [95% CI: 2.0-3.9]), and patients with fracture sequela had increased risk for revision (HR: 2.8, 95% CI: 1.7-4.7) compared with patients with osteoarthritis. DISCUSSION: We found that Delta III (uncemented stem) had a higher risk of revision compared with Delta Xtend (cemented stem). The risk of revision for glenoid component loosening was lower for Delta Xtend, but revisions due to instability/dislocation are still a concern. This register study cannot determine whether the differences found were caused by differences in implant design or other factors that changed during the study period. Risk of revision may have been affected by the indication for primary operation.

Longer-term quality of care, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of implementing a model of care for osteoarthritis: A cluster-randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the quality of care, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness over 12 months after implementing a structured model of care for hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA) in primary healthcare as compared to usual care. DESIGN: In this pragmatic cluster-randomized, controlled trial with a stepped-wedge cohort design, we recruited 40 general practitioners (GPs), 37 physiotherapists (PTs), and 393 patients with symptomatic hip or knee OA from six municipalities (clusters) in Norway. The model included the delivery of a 3-hour patient education and 8-12 weeks individually tailored exercise programs, and interactive workshops for GPs and PTs. At 12 months, the patient-reported quality of care was assessed by the OsteoArthritis Quality Indicator questionnaire (16 items, pass rate 0-100%, 100%=best). Costs were obtained from patient-reported and national register data. Cost-effectiveness at the healthcare perspective was evaluated using incremental net monetary benefit (INMB). RESULTS: Of 393 patients, 109 were recruited during the control periods (control group) and 284 were recruited during interventions periods (intervention group). At 12 months the intervention group reported statistically significant higher quality of care compared to the control group (59% vs. 40%; mean difference: 17.6 (95% confidence interval [CI] 11.1, 24.0)). Cost-effectiveness analyses showed that the model of care resulted in quality-adjusted life-years gained and cost-savings compared to usual care with mean INMB €2020 (95% CI 611, 3492) over 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that implementing the model of care for OA in primary healthcare, improved quality of care and showed cost-effectiveness over 12 months compared to usual care. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02333656.

Cementing techniques for total knee arthroplasty in Norwegian hospitals; a questionnaire-based study.

BACKGROUND: Cementing technique in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) may influence implant survival. There is limited knowledge about the results with clinically used techniques. The aim of this study was to investigate cementing techniques for TKA in Norwegian hospitals, to compare widely used techniques to recommendations from the literature, and to investigate variation within hospitals. METHODS: A questionnaire requesting information about cementing techniques were distributed to all Norwegian orthopedic surgeons performing TKAs regularly in 2020. Data was analyzed using descriptive statistical methods. RESULTS: We acquired 121 responses out of 257 surgeons. They were from 45 out of 56 hospitals, and at least half of the TKA surgeons from 20 hospitals, constituting 79 surgeons. All responders used pulsatile lavage. Cement application to both the tibial plateau and stem (full cementation) was practiced by 61%. Application of cement to both implant and bone was done by 70% of surgeons. Techniques to improve cement penetration were used by 86%. Only 35% of surgeons aimed to get a cement mantle thickness between 3-5 mm. Flexing the knee joint to remove excess cement was done by 82%. We found that in 55% of 20 hospitals the surgeons did not agree on the use of common guidelines in their ward. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of the responders used recommended techniques from the literature when cementing TKA. At more than half of the eligible hospitals, surgeons disagreed about their hospitals' use of common guidelines. Focusing on developing evidence-based guidelines would be beneficial for TKA-quality.

No difference in risk of revision due to infection between clindamycin and cephalosporins as antibiotic prophylaxis in cemented primary total knee replacements: a report from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register 2005-2020.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Systemic antibiotic prophylaxis with clindamycin, which is often used in penicillin- or cephalosporin-allergic patients', has been associated with a higher risk of surgical revision for deep prosthetic joint infection (PJI) than cloxacillin in primary total knee replacement (TKR). We aimed to investigate whether clindamycin increases the risk of surgical revisions due to PJI compared with cephalosporins in primary cemented TKR. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data from 59,081 TKRs in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register (NAR) 2005-2020 was included. 2,655 (5%) received clindamycin and 56,426 (95%) received cephalosporins. Cox regression analyses were performed with adjustment for sex, age groups, diagnosis, and ASA score. Survival times were calculated using Kaplan-Meier estimates and compared using Cox regression with revision for PJI as endpoint. The cephalosporins cefalotin and cefazolin were also compared. RESULTS: Of the TKRs included, 1.3% (n = 743) were revised for PJI. 96% (n = 713) had received cephalosporins and 4% (n = 30) clindamycin for perioperative prophylaxis. Comparing cephalosporins (reference) and clindamycin, at 3-month follow-up the adjusted hazard ratio rate (HRR) for PJI was 0.7 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.4-1.4), at 1 year 0.9 (CI 0.6-1.5), and at 5 years 0.9 (CI 0.6-1.4). Analysis using propensity score matching showed similar results. Furthermore, comparing cefalotin (reference) and cefazolin, HRR was 1.0 (CI 0.8-1.4) at 3 months and 1.0 (CI 0.7-1.3) at 1-year follow-up. CONCLUSION: We found no difference in risk of revision for PJI when using clindamycin compared with cephalosporins in primary cemented TKRs. It appears safe to continue the use of clindamycin in penicillin- or cephalosporin-allergic patients.

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

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

Poor survivorship of total ankle replacements. 1368 cases from the period 1994-2021 in the Norwegian arthroplasty register.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to present the performance of total ankle replacements (TAR) in a national register. METHODS: All surgeons in the country report to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. The completeness of primary TARs in NAR was 79-90% in the years 2017-2020. Cox regression analyses and the Kaplan-Meier method were used to study implant survival and revision risk. RESULTS: 1368 primary TAR´s were implanted in 1266 patients during the period 1994-2021. The last few years saw a marked decrease in the incidence of TARs. The overall survival at 5 years was 81.1% (80.9-81.3) and 69.3% (66.4-72.2) at 10 years. Higher age was strongly associated with better survival. Current prosthesis designs had a better survival than earlier designs ((HRR 0.7, 95% CI 0.6-0.9) CONCLUSION: Revision rates were high in our registry, but current implants had better survival. Younger age increased the risk of revision. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II: prospective cohort study.

Increasing risk of revision due to infection after primary total hip arthroplasty: results from the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The incidence of periprosthetic joint infection after total hip arthroplasty (THA) may be increasing. We performed time-trend analyses of risk, rates, and timing of revision due to infection after primary THAs in the Nordic countries from the period 2004-2018. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 569,463 primary THAs reported to the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association from 2004 to 2018 were studied. Absolute risk estimates were calculated by Kaplan-Meier and cumulative incidence function methods, whereas adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) were assessed by Cox regression with the first revision due to infection after primary THA as primary endpoint. In addition, we explored changes in the time span from primary THA to revision due to infection. RESULTS: 5,653 (1.0%) primary THAs were revised due to infection during a median follow-up time of 5.4 (IQR 2.5-8.9) years after surgery. Compared with the period 2004-2008, the aHRs for revision were 1.4 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.3-1.5) for 2009-2013, and 1.9 (CI 1.7-2.0) for 2014-2018. The absolute 5-year rates of revision due to infection were 0.7% (CI 0.7-0.7), 1.0% (CI 0.9-1.0), and 1.2% (CI 1.2-1.3) for the 3 time periods respectively. We found changes in the time span from primary THA to revision due to infection. Compared with 2004-2008, the aHR for revision within 30 days after THA was 2.5 (CI 2.1-2.9) for 2009-2013, and 3.4 (CI 3.0-3.9) for 2013-2018. The aHR for revision within 31-90 days after THA was 1.5 (CI 1.3-1.9) for 2009-2013, and 2.5 (CI 2.1-3.0) for 2013-2018, compared with 2004-2008. CONCLUSION: The risk of revision due to infection after primary THA almost doubled, both in absolute cumulative incidence and in relative risk, throughout the period 2004-2018. This increase was mainly due to an increased risk of revision within 90 days of THA. This may reflect a "true" increase (i.e., frailer patients or more use of uncemented implants) and/or an "apparent" increase (i.e., improved diagnostics, changed revision strategy, or completeness of reporting) in incidence of periprosthetic joint infection. It is not possible to disclose such changes in the present study, and this warrants further research.

Does choice of bearings influence the survival of cementless total hip arthroplasty in patients aged 20-55 years? Comparison of 21,594 patients reported to the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association dataset 2005-2017.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The bearings with the best survivorship for young patients with total hip arthroplasty (THA) should be identified. We compared hazard ratios (HR) of revision of primary stemmed cementless THAs with metal-on-metal (MoM), ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC), and ceramic-on-highly-crosslinked-polyethylene (CoXLP) with that of metal-on-highly-crosslinked-polyethylene (MoXLP) bearings in patients aged 20-55 years with primary osteoarthritis or childhood hip disorders. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association dataset we included 1,813 MoM, 3,615 CoC, 5,947 CoXLP, and 10,219 MoXLP THA in patients operated on between 2005 and 2017 in a prospective cohort study. We used the Kaplan-Meier estimator for THA survivorship and Cox regression to estimate HR of revision adjusted for confounders (including 95% confidence intervals [CI]). MoXLP was used as reference. HRs were calculated during 3 intervals (0-2, 2-7, and 7-13 years) to meet the assumption of proportional hazards. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 5 years for MoXLP, 10 years for MoM, 6 years for CoC, and 4 years for CoXLP. 13-year Kaplan-Meier survival estimates were 95% (CI 94-95) for MoXLP, 82% (CI 80-84) for MoM, 93% (CI 92-95) for CoC, and 93% (CI 92-94) for CoXLP bearings. MoM had higher 2-7 and 7-13 years' adjusted HRs of revision (3.6, CI 2.3-5.7 and 4.1, CI 1.7-10). MoXLP, CoC, and CoXLP had similar HRs in all 3 periods. The 7-13-year adjusted HRs of revision of CoC and CoXLP were statistically non-significantly higher. CONCLUSION: In young patients, MoXLP for primary cementless THA had higher revision-free survival and lower HR for revision than MoM bearings. Longer follow-up is needed to compare MoXLP, CoC, and CoXLP.

Postvaccination immune responses and risk of primary total hip arthroplasty-A population-based cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relationship between individual postvaccination immune responses and subsequent risk of total hip arthroplasty (THA) due to idiopathic osteoarthritis (OA) or rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHOD: Results of tuberculin skin tests (TSTs) following the Bacille Calmette-Guerin (BCG) vaccination were used as a marker of individual immune responses. TST results from the mandatory mass tuberculosis screening program 1948-1975 (n = 236 770) were linked with information on subsequent THA during 1987-2020 from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. The multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression was performed. RESULTS: A total of 10 698 individuals received a THA during follow-up. In men, there was no association between TST and risk of THA due to OA (Hazard ratio [HR] 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.92-1.12 for positive versus negative TST and HR 1.06, 95% CI 0.95-1.18 for strong positive vs negative TST), while the risk estimates increased with increasingly restrictive sensitivity analyses. In women, there was no association with THA due to OA for positive versus negative TST (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.92-1.05), while a strong positive TST was associated with reduced risk of THA (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.84-0.97). No significant associations were observed in the sensitivity analysis for women or for THA due to RA. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that an increased postvaccination immune response is associated with a nonsignificant trend of increased risk of THA among men and a decreased risk among women, although risk estimates were small.

Did a New Design of the Oxford Unicompartmental Knee Prosthesis Result in Improved Survival? A Study From the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register 2012-2021.

BACKGROUND: Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has generally shown higher revision rates than TKA, and this is particularly true for the femoral component. A twin-peg femoral component (Oxford Partial) has replaced the single-peg version (Oxford Phase III) of the widely used Oxford medial UKA, with the aim of improving femoral component fixation. The introduction of the Oxford Partial Knee also included a fully uncemented option. However, there has been relatively little evidence regarding the effect of these changes on implant survival and revision diagnoses from groups not associated with the implant design. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: Using data from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register, we asked: (1) Has the 5-year implant survival (free from revision for any cause) improved with the medial Oxford unicompartmental knee after the introduction of new designs? (2) Did the causes of revision change between the old and new designs? (3) Is there a difference in risk for specific revision causes between the uncemented and cemented versions of the new design? METHODS: We performed a registry-based observational study using data from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register, a nationwide, mandatory and governmental registry with a high reporting rate. Between 2012 and 2021, 7549 Oxford UKAs were performed, and 105 were excluded due to combinations of the three designs, lateral compartment replacement, or hybrid fixation, leaving 908 cemented Oxford Phase III single-peg (used from 2012 to 2017), 4715 cemented Oxford Partial twin-peg (used from 2012 to 2021), and 1821 uncemented Oxford Partial twin-peg (used from 2014 to 2021), UKAs available for the analysis. The Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression multivariate analysis were used to find the 5-year implant survival and the risk of revision (hazard ratio), when adjusting for age, gender, diagnosis, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, and time period. The risk of revision for any cause and the risk of revision for specific causes were compared, first for the older with the two new designs, and second for the cemented with the uncemented version of the new design. Revision was defined as any operation exchanging or removing implant parts. RESULTS: The 5-year Kaplan-Meier overall implant survival (free from revision for any cause) for the medial Oxford Partial unicompartmental knee did not improve over the study period. The 5-year Kaplan-Meier survival was different (p = 0.03) between the groups: it was 92% (95% confidence interval [CI] 90% to 94%) for the cemented Oxford III, 94% (95% CI 93% to 95%) for the cemented Oxford Partial, and 94% (95% CI 92% to 95%) for the uncemented Oxford Partial. However, the overall risk of revision during the first 5 years was not different between the groups (Cox regression HR 0.8 [95% CI 0.6 to 1.0]; p = 0.09 and 1.0 [95% CI 0.7 to 1.4]; p = 0.89 for the cemented Oxford Partial and the uncemented Oxford Partial, respectively, compared with cemented Oxford III [HR 1]). The uncemented Oxford Partial had a higher risk of revision for infection (HR 3.6 [95% CI 1.2 to 10.5]; p = 0.02) compared with the cemented Oxford III. The uncemented Oxford Partial had a lower risk of revision for pain (HR 0.5 [95% CI 0.2 to 1.0]; p = 0.045) and instability (HR 0.3 [95% CI 0.1 to 0.9]; p = 0.03) compared with the cemented Oxford III. The cemented Oxford Partial had a lower risk of revision for aseptic femoral loosening (HR 0.3 [95% CI 0.1 to 1.0]; p = 0.04) compared with the cemented Oxford III. When comparing the uncemented and cemented versions of the new design, the uncemented Oxford Partial had a higher risk of revision for periprosthetic fracture (HR 15 [95% CI 4 to 54]; p = 0.001) and infection within the first year (HR 3.0 [95% CI 1.5 to 5.7]; p = 0.001) than the cemented Oxford Partial. CONCLUSION: Considering that we found no difference in overall risk of revision during the first 5 years but we found a higher risk of revision for infection, periprosthetic fracture, and higher per implant cost, we currently would recommend against the use of uncemented Oxford Partial over the cemented Oxford Partial or the cemented Oxford III. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

The Long-Term Risk of Knee Arthroplasty in Patients with Arthroscopically Verified Focal Cartilage Lesions: A Linkage Study with the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register, 1999 to 2020.

BACKGROUND: Focal cartilage lesions are common in the knee. The risk of later ipsilateral knee arthroplasty remains unknown. The purposes of the present study were to evaluate the long-term cumulative risk of knee arthroplasty after arthroscopic identification of focal cartilage lesions in the knee, to investigate the risk factors for subsequent knee arthroplasty, and to estimate the subsequent cumulative risk of knee arthroplasty compared with that in the general population. METHODS: Patients who had undergone surgical treatment of focal cartilage lesions at 6 major Norwegian hospitals between 1999 and 2012 were identified. The inclusion criteria were an arthroscopically classified focal cartilage lesion in the knee, an age of ≥18 years at the time of surgery, and available preoperative patient-reported outcomes (PROMs). The exclusion criteria were osteoarthritis or "kissing lesions" at the time of surgery. Demographic data, later knee surgery, and PROMs were collected with use of a questionnaire. A Cox regression model was used to adjust for and investigate the impact of risk factors, and Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed to estimate cumulative risk. The risk of knee arthroplasty in the present cohort was compared with that in the age-matched general Norwegian population. RESULTS: Of the 516 patients who were eligible, 322 patients (328 knees) consented to participate. The mean age at the time of the index procedure was 36.8 years, and the mean duration of follow-up was 19.8 years. The 20-year cumulative risk of knee arthroplasty in the cartilage cohort was 19.1% (95% CI, 14.6% to 23.6%). Variables that had an impact on the risk of knee arthroplasty included an ICRS grade of 3 to 4 (hazard ratio [HR], 3.1; 95% CI, 1.1 to 8.7), an age of ≥40 years at time of cartilage surgery (HR, 3.7; 95% CI, 1.8 to 7.7), a BMI of 25 to 29 kg/m 2 (HR, 3.9; 95% CI, 1.7 to 9.0), a BMI of ≥30 kg/m 2 (HR, 5.9; 95% CI, 2.4 to 14.3) at the time of follow-up, autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) at the time of the index procedure (HR, 3.4; 95% CI, 1.0 to 11.4), >1 focal cartilage lesion (HR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.1 to 3.7), and a high preoperative visual analog scale (VAS) score for pain at the time of the index procedure (HR, 1.1; 95% CI, 1.0 to 1.1). The risk ratio of later knee arthroplasty in the cartilage cohort as compared with the age-matched general Norwegian population was 415.7 (95% CI, 168.8 to 1,023.5) in the 30 to 39-year age group. CONCLUSIONS: In the present study, we found that the 20-year cumulative risk of knee arthroplasty after a focal cartilage lesion in the knee was 19%. Deep lesions, higher age at the time of cartilage surgery, high BMI at the time of follow-up, ACI, and >1 cartilage lesion were associated with a higher risk of knee arthroplasty. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level IV . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Factors correlated with pain after total knee arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

MAIN OBJECTIVE: Systematically review and synthesize preoperative and intraoperative factors associated with pain after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in patients with osteoarthritis. METHODS: Based on a peer-reviewed protocol, we searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and PEDro for prospective observational studies (January 2000 to February 2023) investigating factors associated with pain after TKA. The primary outcome was pain twelve months after TKA. Pain at three and six months were secondary outcomes. Multivariate random-effects meta-analyses were used to estimate mean correlation (95% CIs) between factors and pain. Sensitivity analysis was performed for each risk of bias domain and certainty of evidence was assessed. RESULTS: Of 13,640 studies, 29 reports of 10,360 patients and 61 factors were analysed. The mean correlation between preoperative factors and more severe pain at twelve months was estimated to be 0.36 (95% CI, 0.24, 0.47; P < .000; moderate-certainty evidence) for more catastrophizing, 0.15 (95% CI; 0.08, 0.23; P < .001; moderate-certainty evidence) for more symptomatic joints, 0.13 (95% CI, 0.06, 0.19; P < .001; very low-certainty evidence) for more preoperative pain. Mean correlation between more severe radiographic osteoarthritis and less pain was -0.15 (95% CI; -0.23, -0.08; P < .001; low-certainty evidence). In sensitivity analysis, the estimated correlation coefficient for pain catastrophizing factor increased to 0.38 (95% CI 0.04, 0.64). At six and three months, more severe preoperative pain was associated with more pain. Better preoperative mental health was associated with less pain at six months. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: More pain catastrophizing, more symptomatic joints and more pain preoperatively were correlated with more pain, while more severe osteoarthritis was correlated with less pain one year after TKA. More preoperative pain was correlated with more pain, and better mental health with less pain at six and three months. These findings should be further tested in predictive models to gain knowledge which may improve TKA outcomes.