Distal humeral hemiarthroplasty compared to total elbow replacement for distal humeral fractures: a registry analysis of 906 procedures.

BACKGROUND: Total elbow replacement (TER) is an accepted treatment for complex intra-articular distal humerus fractures in elderly patients. Distal humeral hemiarthroplasty (HA) is also a potential surgical option for unreconstructable fractures and avoids the concerns regarding mechanical wear and functional restrictions associated with TER. In the current literature, there are limited data available to compare the revision rates of HA and TER for the treatment of fracture. We used data from a large national arthroplasty registry to compare the outcome of HA and TER undertaken for fracture/dislocation and to assess the impact of demographics and implant choice on revision rates. METHODS: Data obtained from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry from May 2, 2005, to December 31, 2021, included all procedures for primary elbow replacement with primary diagnosis of fracture or dislocation. The analyses were performed using Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship and hazard ratios (HRs) from Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: There were 293 primary HA and 631 primary TER procedures included. The cumulative percentage revision (CPR) rate at 9 years was 9.7% for HA (95% confidence interval [CI] 6.0, 15.7), and 11.9% (95% CI 8.5, 16.6) for TER. When adjusted for age and gender, there was a significantly higher risk of revision after 3 months for TER compared to HA (HR 2.47, 95% CI 1.22, 5.03, P = .012). There was no difference in the rate of revision for patients aged <55 years or ≥75 years when HA and TER procedures were compared. In primary TER procedures, loosening was the most common cause of revision (3.6% of primary TER procedures), and the most common type of revision in primary TER involved revision of the humeral component only (2.6% of TER procedures). TER has a higher rate of first revision for loosening compared to HA (HR 4.21, 95% CI 1.29, 13.73; P = .017). In HA procedures, instability (1.7%) was the most common cause for revision. The addition of an ulna component was the most common type of revision (2.4% of all HA procedures). CONCLUSION: For the treatment of distal humerus fractures, HA had a lower revision rate than TER after 3 months when adjusted for age and gender. Age <55 or ≥75 years was not a risk factor for revision when HA was compared to TER. Loosening leading to revision is more prevalent in TER and increases with time. In HA, the most common type of revision involved addition of an ulna component with preservation of the humeral component.

Obesity is associated with an increased risk of undergoing shoulder arthroplasty in Australia.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to examine the incidence of overweight and obesity in patients undergoing primary total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) for osteoarthritis (OA) in Australia compared to the incidence of obesity in the general population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 2017/18 cohort consisting of 2997 patients from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) who underwent TSA were compared with matched controls from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) National Health Survey from the same time period. The 2 groups were analyzed according to body mass index (BMI) category, sex, and age. RESULTS: According to the 2017/18 National Health Survey, 35.6% of Australian adults were overweight and 31.3% were obese. Of the primary TSA cases performed, 34.9% were overweight and 50.1% were obese. The relative risk of requiring TSA for OA increased with increasing BMI category. Class III obese females, aged 55-64, were 8.6 times more likely to receive a TSA compared to their normal weight counterparts. Males in the same age and BMI category were 2.5 times more likely. Class III obese patients underwent TSA 4 years (female) and 6 years (male) younger than their normal weight counterparts. CONCLUSION: Obesity significantly increases the risk of requiring TSA. The association appears to be particularly strong for younger females.

Hip Arthroplasty Outcomes in the Presence of Kidney Failure: A National Data Linkage Study.

BACKGROUND: Patients who have kidney failure are at higher risk of requiring total hip arthroplasty (THA) and are at higher risk of complications. This study compared the rate of revision surgery and mortality following THA between patients who have kidney failure receiving long term dialysis or who had a kidney transplant and those who did not have kidney failure. METHODS: A data linkage study was performed using data from 2 national registries: a registry of dialysis and kidney transplant patients and a registry of THA procedures. Both registries had coverage of almost all procedures or treatments in Australia. Data from September 1999 to December 2016 were used. Mortality and revision surgery were compared between patients receiving dialysis, those who had a functioning kidney transplant, and patients who did not have kidney failure using Cox and Fine-Gray (competing risk) regression models. A total of 383,478 primary THA procedures were identified as people receiving dialysis (n = 490), who had a functioning kidney transplant (n = 459), or who did not have kidney failure (n = 382,529). RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the overall rate of revision surgery between the groups (dialysis versus no kidney failure HR = 1.20; 95% CI 0.76, 1.88, transplant versus no kidney failure (hazard ratio) HR = 1.01; 95% (confidence interval) CI 0.66, 1.53). The risk for death after surgery was significantly higher in the dialysis group compared to both the functioning transplant group (HR = 3.44; 95%CI 1.58, 7.5), and in those without kidney failure (HR = 4.13; 95%CI 3.25, 5.25). CONCLUSION: The rate of mortality after THA in patients on dialysis is higher than in patients who have a functioning transplant or those who do not have kidney failure, but there is no early excess mortality to suggest a difference in this metric due to the surgery.

Association between socioeconomic status and joint replacement of the hip and knee: a population-based cohort study of older adults in Tasmania.

BACKGROUND: A socioeconomic gradient exists in the utilisation of total hip replacements (THR) and total knee replacements (TKR) for osteoarthritis. However, the relations between socioeconomic status (SES) and time to THR or TKR is unknown. AIM: To describe the association between SES and time to THR and TKR. METHODS: One thousand and seventy-two older adults residing in Tasmania, Australia, were studied. Incident primary THR and TKR were determined by data linkage to the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. At baseline, each participant's area-level SES was determined using the Index of Relative Socioeconomic Advantage and Disadvantage (IRSAD) from the Australian Bureau of Statistics' 2001 census data. The IRSAD was analysed in two ways: (i) categorised into quartiles, whereby quartile 1 represented the most socioeconomically disadvantaged group; and (ii) the cohort dichotomised at the quartile 1 cut-point. RESULTS: The mean age was 63.0 (±7.5) years and 51% were women. Over the median follow up of 12.9 (interquartile range: 12.2-13.9) years, 56 (5%) participants had a THR and 79 (7%) had a TKR. Compared with the most disadvantaged quartile, less disadvantaged participants were less likely to have a THR (i.e. less disadvantaged participants had a longer time to THR; hazard ratio (HR): 0.56; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.32, 1.00) but not TKR (HR: 0.90; 95% CI 0.53, 1.54). However, the former became non-significant after adjustment for pain and radiographic osteoarthritis, suggesting that the associations may be mediated by these factors. CONCLUSIONS: The present study suggests that time to joint replacement was determined according to the symptoms/need of the participants rather than their SES.

What Can We Learn From Surgeons Who Perform THA and TKA and Have the Lowest Revision Rates? A Study from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry.

BACKGROUND: Long-term implant survivorship in THA and TKA involves a combination of factors related to the patient, the implants used, and the decision-making and technical performance of the surgeon. It is unclear which of these factors is the most important in reducing the proportion of revision surgery. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We used data from a large national registry to ask: In patients receiving primary THA and TKA for a diagnosis of osteoarthritis, do (1) the reasons for revision and (2) patient factors, the implants used, and the surgeon or surgical factors differ between surgeons performing THA and TKA who have a lower revision rate compared with all other surgeons? METHODS: Data were analyzed for all THA and TKA procedures performed for a diagnosis of osteoarthritis from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) from September 1, 1999, when collection began, to December 31, 2018. The AOANJRR obtains data on more than 98% of joint arthroplasties performed in Australia. The 5-year cumulative percent revision (CPR) was identified for all THAs and TKAs performed for a diagnosis of osteoarthritis with 95% confidence intervals (overall CPR); the 5-year CPR with 95% CIs for each surgeon was calculated for THA and TKA separately. For surgeons to be included in the analysis, they had to have performed at least 50 procedures and have a 5-year CPR. The 5-year CPR with 95% CIs for each THA and TKA surgeon was compared with the overall CPR. Two groups were defined: low revision rate surgeons (the upper confidence level for a given surgeon at 5 years is less than 3.84% for THA and 4.32% for TKA), and all other surgeons (any surgeon whose CPR was higher than those thresholds). The thresholds were determined by setting a cutoff at 20% above the upper confidence level for that class. The approach we used to define a low revision rate surgeon was similar to that used by the AOANJRR for determining the better-performing prostheses and is recommended by the International Prosthesis Benchmarking Working Group. By defining the groups in this way, a significant difference between these two groups is created. Determining a reason for this difference is the purpose of presenting the proportions of different factors within each group. The study group for THA included 116 low revision rate surgeons, who performed 88,392 procedures (1619 revised, 10-year CPR 2.7% [95% CI 2.6% to 2.9%]) and 433 other surgeons, who performed 170,094 procedures (6911 revised, 10-year CPR 5.9% [95% CI 5.7% to 6.0%]). The study group for TKA consisted of 144 low revision rate surgeons, who performed 159,961 procedures (2722 revised, 10-year CPR 2.6% [95% CI 2.5% to 2.8%]) and 534 other surgeons, who performed 287,232 procedures (12,617 revised, 10-year CPR 6.4% [95% CI 6.3% to 6.6%]). These groups were defined a priori by their rate of revision, and the purpose of this study was to explore potential reasons for this observed difference. RESULTS: For THA, the difference in overall revision rate between low revision rate surgeons and other surgeons was driven mainly by fewer revisions for dislocation, followed by component loosening and fracture in patients treated by low revision rate surgeons. For TKA, the difference in overall revision rate between low revision rate surgeons and other surgeons was driven mainly by fewer revisions for aseptic loosening, followed by instability and patellofemoral complications in patients treated by low revision rate surgeons. Patient-related factors were generally similar between low revision rate surgeons and other surgeons for both THA and TKA. Regarding THA, there were differences in implant factors, with low revision rate surgeons using fewer types of implants that have been identified as having a higher-than-anticipated rate of revision within the AOANJRR. Low revision rate surgeons used a higher proportion of hybrid fixation, although cementless fixation remained the most common choice. For surgeon factors, low revision rate surgeons were more likely to perform more than 100 THA procedures per year, while other surgeons were more likely to perform fewer than 50 THA procedures per year. In general, the groups of surgeons (low revision rate surgeons and other surgeons) differed less in terms of years of surgical experience than they did in terms of the number of cases they performed each year, although low revision rate surgeons, on average, had more years of experience and performed more cases per year. Regarding TKA, there were more differences in implant factors than with THA, with low revision rate surgeons more frequently performing patellar resurfacing, using an AOANJRR-identified best-performing prosthesis combination (with the lowest rates of revision), using fewer implants that have been identified as having a higher-than-anticipated rate of revision within the AOANJRR, using highly crosslinked polyethylene, and using a higher proportion of cemented fixation compared with other surgeons. For surgeon factors, low revision rate surgeons were more likely to perform more than 100 TKA procedures per year, whereas all other surgeons were more likely to perform fewer than 50 procedures per year. Again, generally, the groups of surgeons (low revision rate surgeons and other surgeons) differed less in terms of years of surgical experience than they did in terms of the number of cases they performed annually, although low revision rate surgeons, on average, had more years of experience and performed more cases per year. CONCLUSION: THAs and TKAs performed by surgeons with the lowest revision rates in Australia show reductions in all of the leading causes of revision for both THA and TKA, in particular, causes of revision related to the technical performance of these procedures. Patient factors were similar between low revision rate surgeons and all other surgeons for both THA and TKA. Low revision rate THA surgeons were more likely to use cement fixation selectively. Low revision rate TKA surgeons were more likely to use patella resurfacing, crosslinked polyethylene, and cemented fixation. Low revision rate THA and TKA surgeons were more likely to use an AOANJRR-identified best-performing prosthesis combination and to use fewer implants identified by the AOANJRR as having a higher-than-anticipated revision rate. To reduce the rate of revision THA and TKA, surgeons should consider addressing modifiable factors related to implant selection. Future research should identify surgeon factors beyond annual case volume that are important to improving implant survivorship. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

What Is the Outcome of the First Revision Procedure of Primary THA for Osteoarthritis? A Study From the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry.

BACKGROUND: Joint arthroplasty registries traditionally report survivorship outcomes mainly on primary joint arthroplasty. The outcome of first revision procedures is less commonly reported, because large numbers of primary procedures are required to analyze a sufficient number of first revision procedures. Additionally, adequate linkage of primary procedures to revisions and mortality is required. When undertaking revision hip surgery, it is important for surgeons to understand the outcomes of these procedures to better inform patients. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: Using data from a large national joint registry, we asked: (1) What is the overall rate of revision of the first aseptic revision procedure for a primary THA? (2) Does the rate of revision of the first revision vary by the diagnosis for the first revision? (3) What is the mortality after the first revision, and does it vary by the reason for first revision? METHODS: The Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry longitudinally maintains data on all primary and revision joint arthroplasties, with nearly 100% capture. The analyses for this study were performed on primary THA procedures in patients with a diagnosis of osteoarthritis up to December 31, 2020, who had undergone subsequent revision. We excluded all primary THAs involving metal-on-metal and ceramic-on-metal bearing surfaces and prostheses with exchangeable necks because these designs may have particular issues associated with revisions, such as extensive soft tissue destruction, that are not seen with conventional bearings, making a comparative analysis of the first revision involving these bearing surfaces more complicated. Metal-on-metal bearing surfaces have not been used in Australia since 2017. We identified 17,046 first revision procedures from the above study population and after exclusions, included 13,713 first revision procedures in the analyses. The mean age at the first revision was 71 ± 11 years, and 55% (7496 of 13,713) of the patients were women. The median (IQR) time from the primary procedure to the first revision was 3 years (0.3 to 7.3), ranging from 0.8 years for the diagnosis of dislocation and instability to 10 years for osteolysis. There was some variation depending on the reason for the first revision. For example, patients undergoing revision for fracture were slightly older (mean age 76 ± 11 years) and patients undergoing revision for dislocation were more likely to be women (61% [2213 of 3620]). The registry has endeavored to standardize the sequence of revisions and uses a numerical approach to describe revision procedures. The first revision is the revision of a primary procedure, the second revision is the revision of the first revision, and so on. We therefore described the outcome of the first revision as the cumulative percent second revision. The outcome measure was the cumulative percent revision, which was defined using Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship to describe the time to the second revision. Hazard ratios from Cox proportional hazards models, adjusting for age and gender, were performed to compare the revision rates among groups. When possible, the cumulative percent second revision at the longest follow-up timepoint was determined with the available data, and when there were insufficient numbers, we used appropriate earlier time periods. RESULTS: The cumulative percent second revision at 18 years was 26% (95% confidence interval [CI] 24% to 28%). When comparing the outcome of the first revision by reason, prosthesis dislocation or instability had the highest rate of second revision compared with the other reasons for first revision. Dual-mobility prostheses had a lower rate of second revision for dislocation or instability than head sizes 32 mm or smaller and when compared to constrained prostheses after 3 months. There was no difference between dual-mobility prostheses and head sizes larger than 32 mm. There were no differences in the rate of second revision when first revisions for loosening, periprosthetic fracture, and osteolysis were compared. If cemented femoral fixation was performed at the time of the first revision, there was a higher cumulative percent second revision for loosening than cementless fixation from 6 months to 6 years, and after this time, there was no difference. The overall mortality after a first revision of primary conventional THA was 1% at 30 days, 2% at 90 days, 5% at 1 year, and 40% at 10 years. A first revision for periprosthetic fracture had the highest mortality at all timepoints compared with other reasons for the first revision. CONCLUSION: Larger head sizes and dual-mobility cups may help reduce further revisions for dislocation, and the use of cementless stems for a first revision for loosening seems advantageous. Surgeons may counsel patients about the higher risk of death after first revision procedures, particularly if the first revision is performed for periprosthetic fracture.Level of Evidence Level III, therapeutic study.

Poor Knee-specific and Generic Patient-reported Outcome Measure Scores at 6 Months Are Associated With Early Revision Knee Arthroplasty: A Study From the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry.

BACKGROUND: The ability to identify which patients are at a greater risk of early revision knee arthroplasty has important practical and resource implications. Many international arthroplasty registries administer patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to provide a holistic assessment of pain, function, and quality of life. However, few PROM scores have been evaluated as potential indicators of early revision knee arthroplasty, and earlier studies have largely focused on knee-specific measures. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: This national registry-based study asked: (1) Which 6-month postoperative knee-specific and generic PROM scores are associated with early revision knee arthroplasty (defined as revision surgery performed 6 to 24 months after the primary procedure)? (2) Is a clinically important improvement in PROM scores (based on thresholds for the minimal important change) after primary knee arthroplasty associated with a lower risk of early revision? METHODS: Preoperative and 6-month postoperative PROM scores for patients undergoing primary knee arthroplasty were sourced from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) and Arthroplasty Clinical Outcomes Registry National. Between January 2013 and December 2020, PROM data were available for 19,402 primary total knee arthroplasties; these data were linked to AOANJRR data on revision knee arthroplasty. Of these, 3448 procedures were excluded because they did not have 6-month PROM data, they had not reached the 6-month postoperative point, they had died before 24 months, or they had received revision knee arthroplasty before the 6-month PROMs assessment. After these exclusions, data were analyzed for 15,954 primary knee arthroplasties. Associations between knee-specific (knee pain, Oxford Knee Score, and 12-item Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score [KOOS-12]) or generic PROM scores (5-level EuroQol quality of life instrument [EQ-5D], EQ VAS, perceived change, and satisfaction) and revision surgery were explored using t-tests, chi-square tests, and regression models. Ninety-four revision procedures were performed at 6 to 24 months, most commonly for infection (39% [37 procedures]). The early revision group was younger than the unrevised group (mean age 64 years versus 68 years) and a between-group difference in American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade was noted. Apart from a small difference in preoperative low back pain for the early revision group (mean low back pain VAS 4.2 points for the early revision group versus 3.3 points for the unrevised group), there were no between-group differences in preoperative knee-specific or generic PROM scores on univariate analysis. As the inclusion of ASA grade or low back pain score did not alter the model results, the final multivariable model included only the most clinically plausible confounders (age and gender) as covariates. Multivariable models (adjusting for age and gender) were also used to examine the association between a clinically important improvement in PROM scores (based on published thresholds for minimal important change) and the likelihood of early revision. RESULTS: After adjusting for age and gender, poor postoperative knee pain, Oxford, KOOS-12, EQ-5D, and EQ VAS scores were all associated with early revision. A one-unit increase (worsening) in knee pain at 6 months was associated with a 31% increase in the likelihood of revision (RR 1.31 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19 to 1.43]; p < 0.001). Reflecting the reversed scoring direction, a one-unit increase (improvement) in Oxford or KOOS-12 score was associated with a 9% and 5% reduction in revision risk, respectively (RR for Oxford: 0.91 [95% CI 0.90 to 0.93]; p < 0.001; RR for KOOS-12 summary: 0.95 [95% CI 0.94 to 0.97]; p < 0.001). Patient dissatisfaction (RR 6.8 [95% CI 3.7 to 12.3]) and patient-perceived worsening (RR 11.7 [95% CI 7.4 to 18.5]) at 6 months were also associated with an increased likelihood of early revision. After adjusting for age and gender, patients who did not achieve a clinically important improvement in PROM scores had a higher risk of early revision (RR 2.9 for the knee pain VAS, RR 4.2 for the Oxford Knee Score, RR 6.3 to 8.6 for KOOS-12, and RR 2.3 for EQ-5D) compared with those who did (reference group). CONCLUSION: Knee-specific and generic PROM scores offer an efficient approach to identifying patients at greater risk of early revision surgery, using either the 6-month score or the magnitude of improvement. These data indicate that surgeons can use single- and multi-item measures to detect a patient-perceived unsuccessful surgical outcome at 6 months after primary knee arthroplasty. Surgeons should be alert to poor PROM scores at 6 months or small improvements in scores (for example, less than 2 points for knee pain VAS or less than 10.5 points for Oxford Knee Score), which signal a need for direct patient follow-up or expedited clinical review. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Reduced Revision Rates in Total Shoulder Arthroplasty With Crosslinked Polyethylene: Results From the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry.

BACKGROUND: Loss of glenoid fixation is a key factor affecting the survivorship of primary total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). It is not known whether the lower revision rates associated with crosslinked polyethylene (XLPE) compared with those of non-XLPE identified in hip and knee arthroplasty apply to shoulder arthroplasty. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We used data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) to compare the revision rates of primary stemmed anatomic TSA using XLPE to procedures using non-XLPE. In patients receiving a primary stemmed anatomic TSA for osteoarthritis, we asked: (1) Does the rate of revision or reason for revision vary between XLPE and non-XLPE all-polyethylene glenoid components? (2) Is there any difference in the revision rate when XLPE is compared with non-XLPE across varying head sizes? (3) Is there any difference in survival among prosthesis combinations with all-polyethylene glenoid components when they are used with XLPE compared with non-XLPE? METHODS: Data were extracted from the AOANJRR from April 16, 2004, to December 31, 2020. The AOANJRR collects data on more than 97% of joint replacements performed in Australia. The study population included all primary, stemmed, anatomic TSA procedures performed for osteoarthritis using all-polyethylene glenoid components. Procedures were grouped into XLPE and non-XLPE bearing surfaces for comparison. Of the 10,102 primary stemmed anatomic TSAs in the analysis, 39% (3942 of 10,102) used XLPE and 61% (6160 of 10,102) used non-XLPE. There were no differences in age, gender, or follow-up between groups. Revision rates were determined using Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship to describe the time to the first revision, with censoring at the time of death or closure of the database at the time of analysis. Revision was defined as removal, replacement, or addition of any component of a joint replacement. The unadjusted cumulative percent revision after the primary arthroplasty (with 95% confidence intervals [CIs]) was calculated and compared using Cox proportional hazard models adjusted for age, gender, fixation, and surgeon volume. Further analyses were performed stratifying according to humeral head size, and a prosthesis-specific analysis adjusted for age and gender was also performed. This analysis was restricted to prosthesis combinations that were used at least 150 times, accounted for at least four revisions, had XLPE and non-XLPE options available, and had a minimum of 3 years of follow-up. RESULTS: Non - XLPE had a higher risk of revision than XLPE after 1.5 years (HR 2.3 [95% CI 1.6 to 3.1]; p < 0.001). The cumulative percent revision at 12 years was 5% (95% CI 4% to 6%) for XLPE and 9% (95% CI 8% to 10%) for non-XLPE. There was no difference in the rate of revision for head sizes smaller than 44 mm. Non-XLPE had a higher rate of revision than XLPE for head sizes 44 to 50 mm after 2 years (HR 2.3 [95% CI 1.5 to 3.6]; p < 0.001) and for heads larger than 50 mm for the entire period (HR 2.2 [95% CI 1.4 to 3.6]; p < 0.001). Two prosthesis combinations fulfilled the inclusion criteria for the prosthesis-specific analysis. One had a higher risk of revision when used with non-XLPE compared with XLPE after 1.5 years (HR 3.7 [95% CI 2.2 to 6.3]; p < 0.001). For the second prosthesis combination, no difference was found in the rate of revision between the two groups. CONCLUSION: These AOANJRR data demonstrate that noncrosslinked, all-polyethylene glenoid components have a higher revision rate compared with crosslinked, all-polyethylene glenoid components when used in stemmed anatomic TSA for osteoarthritis. As polyethylene type is likely an important determinant of revision risk, crosslinked polyethylene should be used when available, particularly for head sizes larger than 44 mm. Further studies will need to be undertaken after larger numbers of shoulder arthroplasties have been performed to determine whether this reduction in revision risk associated with XLPE bears true for all TSA designs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty Revised for Instability: A Detailed Registry Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Instability after total knee arthroplasty is a common but poorly understood complication. METHODS: Data from a large national registry was used to study patient and prosthesis characteristics of 2605 total knee arthroplasty revisions for instability. The cumulative percent revision was calculated using Kaplan-Meier estimates, and Cox proportional models used to compare revision rates. The rate of further revision was analyzed with regard to prostheses used in the first revision. RESULTS: Instability increased from 6% of all first revision procedures in 2003 to 13% in 2019. The revision risk was lower for minimally stabilized prostheses, males, and patients aged ≥65 years. Polyethylene insert exchange was used for 55% of revision procedures, using a thicker insert in 93% and a change in insert conformity in 24% of cruciate-retaining knees. The increase in either thickness or conformity had no effect on the rate of further revision. After a revision for instability, 24% had a second revision by 14 years. Recurrent instability accounted for 32% of further revisions. A lower second revision rate was seen after revision of both femoral and tibial components, and where constrained components were used. CONCLUSION: Revision for instability is increasing. Revising both femoral and tibial components led to a lower rate of second revision compared to a change in insert alone. Recurrent instability was common.

Effect of Aspirin vs Enoxaparin on Symptomatic Venous Thromboembolism in Patients Undergoing Hip or Knee Arthroplasty: The CRISTAL Randomized Trial.

Importance: There remains a lack of randomized trials investigating aspirin monotherapy for symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis following total hip arthroplasty (THA) or total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Objective: To determine whether aspirin was noninferior to enoxaparin in preventing symptomatic VTE after THA or TKA. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cluster-randomized, crossover, registry-nested trial across 31 hospitals in Australia. Clusters were hospitals performing greater than 250 THA or TKA procedures annually. Patients (aged ≥18 years) undergoing hip or knee arthroplasty procedures were enrolled at each hospital. Patients receiving preoperative anticoagulation or who had a medical contraindication to either study drug were excluded. A total of 9711 eligible patients were enrolled (5675 in the aspirin group and 4036 in the enoxaparin group) between April 20, 2019, and December 18, 2020. Final follow-up occurred on August 14, 2021. Interventions: Hospitals were randomized to administer aspirin (100 mg/d) or enoxaparin (40 mg/d) for 35 days after THA and for 14 days after TKA. Crossover occurred after the patient enrollment target had been met for the first group. All 31 hospitals were initially randomized and 16 crossed over prior to trial cessation. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was symptomatic VTE within 90 days, including pulmonary embolism and deep venous thrombosis (DVT) (above or below the knee). The noninferiority margin was 1%. Six secondary outcomes are reported, including death and major bleeding within 90 days. Analyses were performed by randomization group. Results: Enrollment was stopped after an interim analysis determined the stopping rule was met, with 9711 patients (median age, 68 years; 56.8% female) of the prespecified 15 562 enrolled (62%). Of these, 9203 (95%) completed the trial. Within 90 days of surgery, symptomatic VTE occurred in 256 patients, including pulmonary embolism (79 cases), above-knee DVT (18 cases), and below-knee DVT (174 cases). The symptomatic VTE rate in the aspirin group was 3.45% and in the enoxaparin group was 1.82% (estimated difference, 1.97%; 95% CI, 0.54%-3.41%). This failed to meet the criterion for noninferiority for aspirin and was significantly superior for enoxaparin (P = .007). Of 6 secondary outcomes, none were significantly better in the enoxaparin group compared with the aspirin group. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients undergoing hip or knee arthroplasty for osteoarthritis, aspirin compared with enoxaparin resulted in a significantly higher rate of symptomatic VTE within 90 days, defined as below- or above-knee DVT or pulmonary embolism. These findings may be informed by a cost-effectiveness analysis. Trial Registration: ANZCTR Identifier: ACTRN12618001879257.

The effect of patient and prosthesis factors on revision rates after total knee replacement using a multi-registry meta-analytic approach.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Characteristics of patients receiving total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and prostheses used vary between regions and change with time. How these practice variations influence revision remains unclear. We combined registry data for better understanding of the impact of variation, which could potentially improve revision rates. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We used data from 2003 to 2019 for primary TKA from arthroplasty registries of Sweden (SKAR), Australia (AOANJRR), and Kaiser Permanente (KPJRR). We included 1,072,924 TKA procedures for osteoarthritis. Factors studied included age, sex, ASA class, BMI category, prosthesis constraint, fixation, bearing mobility, patellar resurfacing, and polyethylene type. Cumulative percentage revision (CPR) was calculated using Kaplan-Meier estimates, and unadjusted Cox hazard ratios were used for comparisons. Random-effects generic inverse-variance meta-analytic methods were used to determine summary effects. RESULTS: We found similarities in age and sex, but between-registry differences occurred in the other 7 factors studied. Patients from Sweden had lower BMI and ASA scores compared with other registries. Use of cement fixation was similar in the SKAR and KPJRR, but there were marked differences in patellar resurfacing and posterior stabilized component use. Meta-analysis results regarding survivorship favored patients aged ≥ 65 years and minimally stabilized components. There were inconsistent results with time for sex, fixation, and bearing mobility, and no differences for the patellar resurfacing or polyethylene type comparisons. INTERPRETATION: Marked practice variation was found. Use of minimally stabilized and possibly also cemented and fixed bearing prostheses is supported.

Does a Prescription-based Comorbidity Index Correlate with the American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Score and Mortality After Joint Arthroplasty? A Registry Study.

BACKGROUND: When analyzing the outcomes of joint arthroplasty, an important factor to consider is patient comorbidities. The presence of multiple comorbidities has been associated with longer hospital stays, more postoperative complications, and increased mortality. The American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status classification system score is a measure of a patient's overall health and has been shown to be associated with complications and mortality after joint arthroplasty. The Rx-Risk score is another measure for determining the number of different health conditions for which an individual is treated, with a possible score ranging from 0 to 47. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: For patients undergoing THA or TKA, we asked: (1) Which metric, the Rx-Risk score or the ASA score, correlates more closely with 30- and 90-day mortality after TKA or THA? (2) Is the Rx-Risk score correlated with the ASA score? METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) database linked to two other national databases, the National Death Index (NDI) database and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS), a dispensing database. Linkage to the NDI provided outcome information on patient death, including the fact of and date of death. Linkage to the PBS was performed to obtain records of all medicines dispensed to patients undergoing a joint replacement procedure. Patients were included if they had undergone either a THA (119,076 patients, 131,336 procedures) or TKA (182,445 patients, 215,712 procedures) with a primary diagnosis of osteoarthritis, performed between 2013 and 2017. We excluded patients with missing ASA information (THA: 3% [3055 of 119,076]; TKA: 2% [4095 of 182,445]). This left 127,761 primary THA procedures performed in 116,021 patients (53% [68,037 of 127,761] were women, mean age 68 ± 11 years) and 210,501 TKA procedures performed in 178,350 patients (56% [117,337 of 210,501] were women, mean age 68 ± 9 years) included in this study. Logistic regression models were used to determine the concordance of the ASA and Rx-Risk scores and 30-day and 90-day postoperative mortality. The Spearman correlation coefficient (r) was used to estimate the correlation between the ASA score and Rx-Risk score. All analyses were performed separately for THAs and TKAs. RESULTS: We found both the ASA and Rx-Risk scores had high concordance with 30-day mortality after THA (ASA: c-statistic 0.83 [95% CI 0.79 to 0.86]; Rx-Risk: c-statistic 0.82 [95% CI 0.79 to 0.86]) and TKA (ASA: c-statistic 0.73 [95% CI 0.69 to 0.78]; Rx-Risk: c-statistic 0.74 [95% CI 0.70 to 0.79]). Although both scores were strongly associated with death, their correlation was moderate for patients undergoing THA (r = 0.45) and weak for TKA (r = 0.38). However, the median Rx-Risk score did increase with increasing ASA score. For example, for THAs, the median Rx-Risk score was 1, 3, 5, and 7 for ASA scores 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. For TKAs, the median Rx-Risk score was 2, 4, 5, and 7 for ASA scores 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. CONCLUSION: The ASA physical status and RxRisk were associated with 30-day and 90-day mortality; however, the scores were only weakly to moderately correlated with each other. This suggests that although both scores capture a similar level of patient illness, each score may be capturing different aspects of health. The Rx-Risk may be used as a complementary measure to the ASA score. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Incidence, Risk Factors, and Outcome of Ceramic-On-Ceramic Bearing Breakage in Total Hip Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Ceramic-on-ceramic bearing breakage is a rare but significant complication of total hip arthroplasty. This study aimed to identify risk factors for breakage and to determine the outcome of different revision options. METHODS: All ceramic-on-ceramic primary total hip arthroplasty procedures reported to the Australian Joint Replacement Registry from September 1999 to December 2019 were included. Procedures were subdivided into alumina or mixed ceramic (alumina/zirconia). All breakages were identified. The association between ceramic type and head size was assessed. Subsequent revision rates were compared and cause of revision assessed. RESULTS: There were 23,534 alumina and 71,144 mixed ceramic procedures. Breakage was the reason for 1st revision in 84 alumina (5.27% of all revisions and 0.36% of procedures) and 56 mixed ceramic procedures (2.46% of all revisions; 0.08% of procedures). Alumina had a higher breakage rate than mixed ceramic (HR 2.50 (95% CI 1.75, 3.59), P < .001), and breakage was higher for 36-38mm head sizes using alumina (HR 2.84 (1.52, 5.31), P = .001). 17.8% of 2nd revisions occur by 3 years, due to dislocation, infection, metal-related pathology, and loosening. A neck adapter sleeve did not reduce 2nd revisions. Numbers were too low to compare revision bearing surface options. CONCLUSION: Ceramic breakage has reduced with mixed ceramics but has a 0.79/1000 incidence at 15-year follow-up. It is unclear what the risk factors are for modern ceramics with increasing head size a risk for alumina only. Risk of 2nd revision is high and occurs early. The optimal revision option is unknown.

Horizontal fissuring at the osteochondral interface: a novel and unique pathological feature in patients with obesity-related osteoarthritis.

OBJECTIVES: Obesity is a well-recognised risk factor for osteoarthritis (OA). Our aim is to characterise body mass index (BMI)-associated pathological changes in the osteochondral unit and determine if obesity is the major causal antecedent of early joint replacement in patients with OA. METHODS: We analysed the correlation between BMI and the age at which patients undergo total knee replacement (TKR) in 41 023 patients from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. We then investigated the effect of BMI on pathological changes of the tibia plateau of knee joint in a representative subset of the registry. RESULTS: 57.58% of patients in Australia who had TKR were obese. Patients with overweight, obese class I & II or obese class III received a TKR 1.89, 4.48 and 8.08 years earlier than patients with normal weight, respectively. Microscopic examination revealed that horizontal fissuring at the osteochondral interface was the major pathological feature of obesity-related OA. The frequency of horizontal fissure was strongly associated with increased BMI in the predominant compartment. An increase in one unit of BMI (1 kg/m2) increased the odds of horizontal fissures by 14.7%. 84.4% of the horizontal fissures were attributable to obesity. Reduced cartilage degradation and alteration of subchondral bone microstructure were also associated with increased BMI. CONCLUSIONS: The key pathological feature in OA patients with obesity is horizontal fissuring at the osteochondral unit interface. Obesity is strongly associated with a younger age of first TKR, which may be a result of horizontal fissures.

Do Older Adults with Low Muscle Mass or Strength, in the Presence of Obesity, Have an Increased Risk of Joint Replacement Over 13 Years?

This study aims to assess whether older adults with low muscle mass or strength, in the presence of obesity, have an increased risk of knee (TKR) and hip replacement (THR) over 13 years. 1082 community-dwelling older adults (51% women; mean age 62.9 ± 7.5 years) were studied at baseline and multiple time points over 13 years. The incidence of TKR and THR was determined by data linkage to National Joint Replacement Registry. Appendicular lean and fat mass were measured using DXA. Lower-limb muscle strength (LMS) was assessed by dynamometer. Low muscle mass and strength were defined as the lowest sex-specific tertiles for appendicular lean mass (adjusted for height and total body fat mass) and lower-limb strength, respectively. Obesity was defined as the highest sex-specific tertile for total body fat mass. Competing risk regression models were used to estimate the sub-distribution hazard ratio (SHR) for TKR and THR. Over 13 years of follow-up, 6.8% (n = 74/1082) of the participants had a TKR and 4.7% (n = 50/1066) had THR. Participants with the combination of obesity and low muscle strength (SHR 3.36, 95% CI 1.50, 7.53) but low muscle mass (SHR 1.11, 95% CI 0.52, 2.40) had a significantly increased risk of TKR, compared to individuals with neither obesity nor low muscle mass/strength. However, obesity with low muscle strength did not lead to a significantly greater risk of TKR compared to having low muscle strength or obesity alone. There was no evidence for an association between obesity with low muscle mass or strength and THR (all p > 0.05). This finding suggests that combining muscle and fat assessments to predict the future risk of TKR is no better than each condition on its own.

Does Knee Prosthesis Survivorship Improve When Implant Designs Change? Findings from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry.

BACKGROUND: TKA generally has excellent long-term survivorship. When a new knee system supersedes a previous model, increased survivorship, improved functional performance, or both may be expected, because key areas of design modification are often targeted to address wear, stability, and the patellofemoral articulation. However, not all design changes are beneficial, and to our knowledge, knee arthroplasty has not been systematically evaluated in the context of design changes that occur during the development of new knee arthroplasty systems. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: Using the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) we performed multiple old-to-new comparisons of frequently used contemporary knee implants to ask: (1) does overall prosthesis survivorship free from revision increase when a new knee prosthesis system is introduced to replace a prior prosthesis system? (2) Has survivorship free from revision improved for the revision indications of wear, instability, and patellofemoral articulation issues, where development efforts have been concentrated? METHODS: Data from the AOANJRR from September 1999 to December 2017 were used to compare the survivorship of prostheses free from revision at a maximum of 17 years in procedures where a new design model was introduced to replace a prior knee system from the same manufacturer. Only prosthesis systems used in a minimum of 2000 primary TKA procedures for osteoarthritis that had a minimum of 5 years of follow-up were included. Varus-valgus constrained and hinge TKA designs were excluded. Cruciate-retaining, posterior-stabilized, and medial pivot-design knees were considered separately. The new and old prosthesis systems were paired for analysis. Survivorship was calculated with Kaplan Meier estimates and comparisons were performed using the Cox proportional hazards method. Subanalyses according to the three main revision indications were performed, and where possible, analyses were performed based on polyethylene types (highly cross-linked polyethylene and ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene), combined and separated. Revision was defined as a reoperation of a previous knee arthroplasty in which one or more of the components was removed, replaced, or added. There were 323,955 TKA procedures and 11 new prosthesis system designs that were introduced to replace an earlier knee system from the same manufacturer. Of these prosthesis system pairs, six were cruciate-retaining prostheses, four were posterior-stabilized designs, and one was a medial pivot design. RESULTS: Six of the 11 knee system pairs showed improved survivorship with the new design, three were no different, and in two, the newer prosthesis systems had a higher rate of revision than the old one did. When revision for wear was analyzed, five prosthesis systems showed improvement, five were no different, and one had a higher rate of revision than the previous system did. There was no improvement in the rate of revision for instability; seven new prosthesis systems showed no difference from the previous system and four new prosthesis systems had a higher rate of revision than the previous system did. A subanalysis of revision for patellofemoral complications showed improvement in two comparisons, no difference in six, and a higher revision rate in two; one could not be calculated because of an insufficient number of revisions for this reason. CONCLUSIONS: It is difficult to predict whether a new system will demonstrate better survival than a previous one, and widespread uptake of a new design before a benefit is shown in robust clinical studies is unwise. Similarly, adoption of a new system for which there is no difference in survivorship from a previous model may be premature because a new device may have associated unknown and unintended consequences. Healthcare policy makers and therapeutic device regulators should similarly be guided by results and seek out peer-reviewed evidence before accepting change to established practice. Surgeons must be aware that implant changes may not translate into better survivorship and must seek compelling evidence of improvement in survival and/or function before changing systems. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Short-term Revision Risk of Patellofemoral Arthroplasty Is High: An Analysis from Eight Large Arthroplasty Registries.

BACKGROUND: Patellofemoral arthroplasty (PFA) is one option for the treatment of isolated patellofemoral osteoarthritis, but there are limited data regarding the procedure and results. Because isolated patellofemoral arthritis is relatively uncommon, available case series generally are small, and even within national registries, sample sizes are limited. Combining data from multiple registries may aid in assessing worldwide PFA usage and survivorship. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We combined and compared data from multiple large arthroplasty registries worldwide to ask: (1) What proportion of patients undergoing primary knee arthroplasty have PFA? (2) What are the patient and prosthesis characteristics associated with PFA in common practice, as reflected in registries? (3) What is the survivorship free from revision of PFA and what are the reasons for and types of revisions? METHODS: Data were provided by eight registries that are members of the International Society of Arthroplasty Registries (ISAR) who agreed to share aggregate data: Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Sweden, Finland, Norway, the Netherlands, and the United States. De-identified data were obtained for PFA performed from either the beginning of year 2000, or the earliest recorded implantation date after that in each individual registry when PFA data collection commenced, up to December 31, 2016. This included patient demographics, implant use, all-cause revision rate (determined by cumulative percent revision [CPR]), and reasons for and type of revision. RESULTS: During the data collection period, 6784 PFAs were performed in the eight countries. PFAs comprised less than 1% of primary knee replacements in all registries. Patient demographics were comparable in all countries. Patients were generally more likely to be women than men, and the mean age ranged from 50 years to 60 years. All registries showed a high rate of revision for PFA. The 5-year CPR for any reason ranged from 8.0% (95% CI 4.5 to 11.5) in Norway to 18.1% (95% CI 15.5 to 20.7) in the Netherlands. The most common reason for revision across all countries was disease progression (42%, 434 of 1034). Most PFAs (83%, 810 of 980) were revised to a TKA. CONCLUSIONS: The revision risk of PFA in all registries surveyed was more than three times higher than the reported revision risk of TKA at the same times. The survivorship of PFA is similar to that of the no-longer-used procedure of metal-on-metal conventional hip replacement. Although there may be potential functional benefits from PFA, these findings of consistent and alarmingly high rates of revision should create concern, particularly as this procedure is often used in younger patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty compared to stemmed hemiarthroplasty for proximal humeral fractures: a registry analysis of 5946 patients.

BACKGROUND: There is an increasing trend toward the use of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) over stemmed hemiarthroplasty (HA) for the management of proximal humeral fractures. There are limited data available comparing the revision rates for RTSA and HA in the setting of a fracture. The aim of this study was to compare the revision rates for RTSA and HA when used for the treatment of a fracture and to analyze the effect of demographics and prosthesis fixation on these revision rates. METHODS: Data obtained from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry from April 16, 2004, to December 31, 2017, included all procedures for primary diagnosis proximal humeral fracture. The analyses were performed using Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship and hazard ratios from Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Over the study period, there were 3049 (51%) RTSA and 2897 (49%) HA procedures. The cumulative percent revision rate at 9 years was lower for the RTSA than for the HA: 7.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.8-10.1) compared with 11.7% (95% CI, 10.3-13.2). Between 0 and 6 months, the HA had a significantly lower revision rate than the RTSA (hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.34-0.72; P < .001). Between 6 month and 3 years, the HA had a significantly higher revision rate. For the RTSA, males have a significantly higher rate of revision compared with females. There is a higher rate of early revision due to instability in younger persons (55-64) and males. For both RTSA and HA, cemented prostheses have lower revision rates compared with cementless prostheses. CONCLUSIONS: RTSA has a significantly lower revision rate compared with HA for the treatment of proximal humeral fractures in females. Younger patients (<65) and males are at risk of early revision secondary to instability. In these patient groups, either alternatives to RTSA or further attention to fixation of tuberosities and shoulder rehabilitation may be indicated.

The Effect of Size for a Hydroxyapatite-Coated Cementless Implant on Component Revision in Total Hip Arthroplasty: An Analysis of 41,265 Stems.

BACKGROUND: The cementless Corail is one of the most commonly used stems in total hip arthroplasty (THA). The aim of this study was to investigate whether there was a difference in revision rate for smaller stems. METHODS: All primary THA procedures recorded by the Australian Joint Replacement Registry from September 1999 to December 2017 performed for osteoarthritis using the Corail stem, a cementless acetabular cup, modern bearing surfaces (ceramic/ceramic, ceramic/cross-linked polyethylene, and metal/cross-linked polyethylene), and 28 mm, 32 mm, and 36 mm head sizes were included. The primary outcome measure was femoral component revision. Data were analyzed and adjusted for age, gender, and head size. Further analysis investigated the effects of surgical approach. RESULTS: There was 41,265 primary THAs recorded. The cumulative percent revision (CPR) at 13 years was 7.7% (5.5, 10.7) for stem sizes 8 and 9 and 3.0% (2.4, 3.8) for sizes 10-20 (P < .001). When adjusted for age and gender, the sizes 8 and 9 collared (hazard ratio [HR]: 6.22 [3.84-10.06], P < .001) and collarless (HR: 3.28 [2.41-4.45], P < .001) had a higher CPR than the collared and collarless size 10-20. The size 8 and 9 stems performed with an anterior approach had the highest CPR (HR: 14.44 [6.21-33.56], P < .001). The main reason for revision of size 8 and 9 femoral stems was loosening (65.2%, compared to 31.5% for 10-20 femoral stems). CONCLUSIONS: Smaller Corail stems have 4 times the rate of revision compared with the larger femoral sizes with loosening being the most common diagnosis. This is most evident when using an anterior approach.

Postmarket surveillance of arthroplasty device components using machine learning methods.

PURPOSE: While joint arthroplasty is generally a safe and effective procedure, there are concerns that some devices are at increased risk of failure. Early identification of total hip arthroplasty devices with increased risk of failure can be challenging because devices consist of multiple components, hundreds of distinct components are currently used in surgery, and any estimated effect needs to address confounding due to device and patient factors. The purpose of this study was to assess the effectiveness of machine learning approaches at identifying recalled components listed by the US Food and Drug Administration using data from a US total joint arthroplasty registry. METHODS: An open cohort study was conducted using data (January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2015) from 74 520 implantations and 348 unique components in the Kaiser Permanente Total Joint Replacement Registry. Exposures of interest were device components used in elective primary total hip arthroplasty. The outcome was time to first revision surgery, defined as exchange, removal, or addition of any component. Machine learning methods included regularized/unregularized Cox models and random survival forest. RESULTS: Among the recalled components detected were ASR acetabular shell/large femoral head, Durom acetabular shell/Metasul large femoral head, and Rejuvenate modular neck stem. The three components not identified were characterized by small numbers of devices recorded in the registry. CONCLUSIONS: The novel approaches to signal detection may improve postmarket surveillance of frequently used arthroplasty devices, which in turn will improve public health.