Mode of Fixation and Survivorship in Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty in the American Joint Replacement Registry.

BACKGROUND: A recent rapid increase in cementless total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has been noted in the American Joint Replacement Registry (AJRR). The purpose of our study was to compare TKA survivorship based on the mode of fixation reported to the AJRR in the Medicare population. METHODS: Primary TKAs from Medicare patients submitted to AJRR from 2012 to 2022 were analyzed. The Medicare and AJRR databases were merged. Cox regression stratified by sex compared revision outcomes (all-cause, infection, mechanical loosening, and fracture) for cemented, cementless, and hybrid fixation, controlling for age and the Charlson comorbidity index (CCI). RESULTS: A total of 634,470 primary TKAs were analyzed. Cementless TKAs were younger (71.8 versus 73.1 years, P < .001) than cemented TKAs and more frequently utilized in men (8.2 versus 5.8% women, P < .001). Regional differences were noted, with cementless fixation more common in the Northeast (10.5%) and South (9.2%) compared to the West (4.4%) and Midwest (4.3%) (P < .001). No significant differences were identified in all-cause revision rates in men or women ≥ 65 for cemented, cementless, or hybrid TKA after adjusting for age and CCI. Significantly lower revision for fracture was identified for cemented compared to cementless and hybrid fixation in women ≥ 65 after adjusting for age and CCI (P = .0169). CONCLUSIONS: No survivorship advantage for all-cause revision was noted based on the mode of fixation in men or women ≥ 65 after adjusting for age and CCI. A significantly lower revision rate for fractures was noted in women ≥ 65 utilizing cemented fixation. Cementless fixation in primary TKA should be used with caution in elderly women.

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.

Dual Mobility Articulation in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: An American Joint Replacement Registry Analysis of Patients Aged 65 Years and Older.

BACKGROUND: Increasingly, dual mobility (DM) articulations have been used in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA), which may prevent postoperative hip instability. The purpose of this study was to report on outcomes of DM implants used in revision THA from the American Joint Replacement Registry (AJRR). METHODS: Revision THA cases performed between 2012 and 2018 Medicare were eligible and categorized by 3 articulations: DM, ≤32 mm, and ≥36 mm femoral heads. The AJRR-sourced revision THA cases were linked to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) claims data to supplement (re)revision cases not captured in the AJRR. Patient and hospital characteristics were described and modeled as covariates. Using multivariable Cox proportional hazard models, considering competing risk of mortalities, hazard ratios were estimated for all-cause re-revision and re-revision for instability. Of 20,728 revision THAs, 3,043 (14.7%) received a DM, 6,565 (31.7%) a ≤32 mm head, and 11,120 (53.6%) a ≥36 mm head. RESULTS: At 8-year follow-up, the cumulative all-cause re-revision rate for ≤32 mm heads was 21.9% (95%-confidence interval (CI) 20.2%-23.7%) and significantly (P < .0001) higher than DM (16.5%, 95%-CI 15.0%-18.2%) and ≥36 mm heads (15.2%, 95%-CI 14.2%-16.3%). At 8-year follow-up, ≥36 heads had significantly (P < .0001) lower hazard of re-revision for instability (3.3%, 95%-CI 2.9%-3.7%) while the DM (5.4%, 95%-CI 4.5%-6.5%) and ≤32 mm groups (8.6%, 95%-CI 7.7%-9.6%) had higher rates. CONCLUSION: The DM bearings are associated with lower rates of revision for instability compared to patients who had ≤32 mm heads and higher revision rates for ≥36 mm heads. These results may be biased due to unidentified covariates associated with implant selection.

Timing and Factors Associated With Revision for Infection After Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty Based on American Joint Replacement Registry Data.

BACKGROUND: Infection following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remains a challenging clinical problem. Using American Joint Replacement Registry data, this study examined factors related to the incidence and timing of infection. METHODS: Primary TKAs performed from January 2012 through December 2018 among patients ≥65 years of age at surgery were queried from the American Joint Replacement Registry and merged with Medicare data to enhance capture of revisions for infection. Multivariate Cox regressions incorporating patient, surgical, and institutional factors were used to produce hazard ratios (HRs) associated with revision for infection and mortality after revision for infection. RESULTS: Among 525,887 TKAs, 2,821 (0.54%) were revised for infection. Men had an increased risk of revision for infection at all-time intervals (≤90 days, HR = 2.06, 95% CI: 1.75-2.43, P < .0001; >90 days to 1 year, HR = 1.90, 95% CI: 1.58-2.28, P < .0001; >1 year, HR = 1.57, 95% CI: 1.37-1.79, P < .0001). TKAs performed for osteoarthritis had an increased risk of revision for infection at ≤90 days (HR = 2.01, 95% CI: 1.45-2.78, P < .0001) but not at later times. Mortality was more likely among patients who had a Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) ≥ 5 compared to those who had a CCI ≤ 2 (HR = 3.21, 95% CI: 1.35-7.63, P = .008). Mortality was also more likely among older patients (HR = 1.61 for each decade, 95% CI: 1.04-2.49, P = .03). CONCLUSION: Based on primary TKAs performed in the United States, men were found to have a persistently higher risk of revision for infection, while a diagnosis of osteoarthritis was associated with a significantly higher risk only during the first 90 days after surgery.

Dislocation Rates of Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty in Patients With Prior Lumbar Spine Fusion and Lumbar Degenerative Disk Disease With and Without Utilization of Dual Mobility Cups: An American Joint Replacement Registry Study.

INTRODUCTION: Patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) with a previous history of lumbar spine fusion (LSF) are at increased risk of dislocation. The purpose of this study was to compare the 90-day and 1-year dislocation rates of patients with LSF or lumbar degenerative disk disease who underwent primary THA with and without dual mobility (DM) constructs. METHODS: An American Joint Replacement Registry data set of patients aged 65 years and older undergoing primary THA with minimum 1-year follow-up with a history of prior LSF or a diagnosis of lumbar degenerative disk disease was created. DM status was identified, and dislocation and all-cause revision at 90 days and 1 year were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 15,572 patients met study criteria. The overall dislocation rates for the non-DM and DM groups were 1.17% and 0.68%, respectively, at 90 days, and 1.68% and 0.91%, respectively, at 1 year ( P = 0.005). The odds of 90-day (OR = 0.578, [ P = 0.0328]) and 1-year (OR = 0.534, [ P = 0.0044]) dislocation were significantly less with DM constructs, compared with non-DM constructs. No statistically significant difference was observed in revision rates between groups. DISCUSSION: This large registry-based study identified a reduced risk of dislocation in patients at risk for spinal stiffness when a DM compared with non-DM construct was used in primary THA at 90-day and 1-year follow-up intervals. Our data support the use of DM constructs in high-risk patients with stiff spines and altered spinopelvic mobility as a promising option to mitigate the risk of postoperative hip instability after primary THA. LEVELS OF EVIDENCE: Level III. Therapeutic retrospective cohort.

Migration Patterns for Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty in the United States as Reported in the American Joint Replacement Registry.

BACKGROUND: Revision total hip arthroplasty (revTHA) is associated with higher rates of complications and greater costs than primary procedures. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of hospital size, teaching status, and indication for revTHA, on migration patterns in patients older than 65 years old. METHODS: All THAs and revTHAs reported to the American Joint Replacement Registry from 2012 to 2018 were included and merged with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services database. Migration rate was defined as a patient's THA and revTHA procedures that were performed at separate institutions by different surgeons. Migratory patterns were recorded based on hospital size, teaching status, and indication for revTHA. Analyses were performed by statisticians. RESULTS: The number of linked procedures included was 11,906. Migration rates in revTHA due to infection were higher for small hospitals than large hospitals (46.6% vs 28.6%, P < .0001). Migration rates were higher comparing non-teaching with teaching hospitals (55% vs 34%, P < .0001). This difference was significant for periprosthetic fractures (70.6% vs 37.2%, P = .005), instability (56.5% vs 35.5%, P = .04), and mechanical complications (88.9% vs 34.7%, P < .05). Most patients migrated to medium or large hospitals rather than small hospitals (89% vs 11%, P < .0001) and to teaching rather than non-teaching institutions (82% vs 18%, P < .0001). CONCLUSION: Hospital size and teaching status significantly affected migration patterns for revTHA. Migration rates were significantly higher in small non-teaching hospitals in revTHA due to infection, periprosthetic fracture, instability, and mechanical complications. Over 80% of patients migrated to larger teaching hospitals.