In Revision THA, Is the Re-revision Risk for Dislocation and Aseptic Causes Greater in Dual-mobility Constructs or Large Femoral Head Bearings? A Study from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry.

BACKGROUND: Dislocation is one of the most common causes of a re-revision after a revision THA. Dual-mobility constructs and large femoral head bearings (≥ 36 mm) are known options for mitigating this risk. However, it is unknown which of these choices is better for reducing the risk of dislocation and all-cause re-revision surgery. It is also unknown whether there is a difference between dual-mobility constructs and large femoral head bearings according to the size of the acetabular component. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We used data from a large national registry to ask: In patients undergoing revision THA for aseptic causes after a primary THA performed for osteoarthritis, (1) Does the proportion of re-revision surgery for prosthesis dislocation differ between revision THAs performed with dual-mobility constructs and those performed with large femoral head bearings? (2) Does the proportion of re-revision surgery for all aseptic causes differ between revision THAs performed with dual-mobility constructs and those performed with large femoral head bearings? (3) Is there a difference when the results are stratified by acetabular component size? METHODS: Data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) were analyzed for 1295 first-revision THAs for aseptic causes after a primary THA performed for osteoarthritis. The study period was from January 2008-when the first dual-mobility prosthesis was recorded-to December 2019. There were 502 dual-mobility constructs and 793 large femoral head bearings. There was a larger percentage of women in the dual-mobility construct group (67% [334 of 502]) compared with the large femoral head bearing group (51% [402 of 793]), but this was adjusted for in the statistical analysis. Patient ages were similar for the dual-mobility construct group (67 ± 11 years) and the large femoral head group (65 ± 12 years). American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class and BMI distributions were similar. The mean follow-up was shorter for dual-mobility constructs at 2 ± 1.8 years compared with 4 ± 2.9 years for large femoral head bearings. The cumulative percent revision (CPR) was determined for a diagnosis of prosthesis dislocation as well as for all aseptic causes (excluding infection). Procedures using metal-on-metal bearings were excluded. The time to the re-revision was described using Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship, with right censoring for death or database closure at the time of analysis. The unadjusted CPR was estimated each year of the first 5 years for dual-mobility constructs and for each of the first 9 years for large femoral head bearings, with 95% confidence intervals using unadjusted pointwise Greenwood estimates. The apparent shorter follow-up of the dual-mobility construct group relates to the more recent increase in dual-mobility numbers recorded in the registry. The results were adjusted for age, gender, and femoral fixation. Results were subanalyzed for acetabular component sizes < 58 mm and ≥ 58 mm, set a priori on the basis of biomechanical and other registry data. RESULTS: There was no difference in the proportion of re-revision for prosthesis dislocation between dual-mobility constructs and large femoral head bearings (hazard ratio 1.22 [95% CI 0.70 to 2.12]; p = 0.49). At 5 years, the CPR of the re-revision for prosthesis dislocation was 4.0% for dual mobility constructs (95% CI 2.3% to 6.8%) and 4.1% for large femoral head bearings (95% CI 2.7% to 6.1%). There was no difference in the proportion of all aseptic-cause second revisions between dual-mobility constructs and large femoral head bearings (HR 1.02 [95% CI 0.76 to 1.37]; p = 0.89). At 5 years, the CPR of dual-mobility constructs was 17.6% for all aseptic-cause second revision (95% CI 12.6% to 24.3%) and 17.8% for large femoral head bearings (95% CI 14.9% to 21.2%). When stratified by acetabular component sizes less than 58 mm and at least 58 mm, there was no difference in the re-revision CPR for dislocation or for all aseptic causes between dual-mobility constructs and large femoral head bearings. CONCLUSION: Either dual-mobility constructs or large femoral head bearings can be used in revision THA, regardless of acetabular component size, as they did not differ in terms of re-revision rates for dislocation and all aseptic causes in this registry study. Longer term follow-up is required to assess whether complications develop with either implant or whether a difference in revision rates becomes apparent. Ongoing follow-up and comparison in a registry format would seem the best way to compare long-term complications and revision rates. Future studies should also compare surgeon factors and whether they influence decision-making between prosthesis options and second revision rates. Nested randomized controlled trials in national registries would seem a viable option for future research. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

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.

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.

Effect of glenosphere size on reverse shoulder arthroplasty revision rate: an analysis from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR).

BACKGROUND: Modularity is an integral element of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA). Glenosphere diameter is a key component, but its effect on revision rate is unknown. The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between glenosphere size and revision rates in RTSA procedures. METHODS: Data from a large national arthroplasty registry were analyzed for the period April 2004 to 31 December 2019. The study population included all primary RTSA procedures using glenosphere sizes <38 mm, 38-40 mm, and >40 mm. A subanalysis of glenosphere sizes for each of the 3 most commonly implanted prostheses and further analyses by patient age and gender were also performed. The rate of revision was determined by Kaplan-Meier estimates, with comparisons by Cox proportional hazard models. RESULTS: There were 28,817 primary RTSA procedures. Glenosphere sizes <38 mm had a higher revision rate compared to 38-40-mm glenospheres (hazard ratio [HR] 1.28, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.11, 1.48, P < .001) and >40-mm sizes (HR 1.35, 95% CI 1.15, 1.59, P < .001). Males with <38-mm and 38-40-mm glenospheres had significantly higher revision rates compared to >40-mm glenospheres (HR 1.49, 95% CI 1.21, 1.83, P < .001; and HR 1.28, 95% CI 1.03, 1.58, P = .025, respectively). Females with <38-mm and >40-mm glenospheres had higher revision rates compared to females with 38-40-mm glenospheres (HR 1.38, 95% CI 1.14, 1.68, P < .001; and HR 1.41, 95% CI 1.06, 1.88, P = .019, respectively). For patients aged 65-74 years, glenospheres >40 mm had a significantly lower revision rate than both the <38-mm glenospheres (entire period: HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.45, 0.76, P < .001) and 38-40-mm glenospheres (entire period: HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.54, 0.94, P = .017). For patients aged ≥75 years (n = 14,622), <38-mm glenospheres had a significantly higher rate of revision compared with 38-40-mm glenospheres after 3 months (HR  1.43, 95% CI 1.09, 1.86, P = .009). Analysis comparing glenosphere sizes within each of the 3 most commonly implanted prostheses found that the Delta Xtend with 38-40-mm glenospheres had higher revision rates compared with >40-mm glenospheres (HR 1.49, 95% CI 1.14, 1.92, P = .003). The SMR L1 (Lima) 38-40-mm glenospheres had a lower rate of revision compared with the <38-mm (HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.37, 0.67, P < .001) and >40-mm glenospheres (HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.43, 0.85, P = .004). CONCLUSIONS: Glenospheres <38 mm can be expected to increase revision rates in primary RTSAs. The optimum size of glenospheres is gender, age, and prosthesis specific, with revision rates lower for females with 38-40-mm glenospheres and lower for males with >40-mm glenospheres.

Revision for Aseptic Loosening of Highly Porous Acetabular Components in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty: An Analysis of 20,993 Total Hip Replacements.

BACKGROUND: Highly porous-coated titanium acetabular components have a high coefficient of friction and ultraporous surfaces to enhance bone ingrowth and osseointegration in total hip arthroplasty (THA). There have been concerns with the development of early radiolucent lines and aseptic loosening of highly porous acetabular components. It is unclear whether these concerns relate to a specific implant or the entire class. The aim of this study is to compare the revision rates for aseptic loosening of highly porous acetabular combinations in primary THA using data from a large joint replacement registry. METHODS: Data were retrieved from the Australian Orthopedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry for the study period September 1999 to December 2019. All primary THA procedures recorded and performed for osteoarthritis using the most common combinations for each highly porous acetabular component with highly cross-linked polyethylene and a 32-mm or 36-mm femoral head were included. The primary outcome measure was revision for aseptic loosening of the acetabular component. Results were adjusted for patient age and gender. RESULTS: There were 20,993 primary THA procedures performed for osteoarthritis using a highly porous acetabular component across 6 combinations. Relative to the POLARSTEM/R3 (StikTite), the Exeter V40/Tritanium had a significantly higher risk of revision for aseptic loosening of the acetabular component (hazard ratio 0.21, 95% confidence interval 0.06-0.74, P = .014). There was no difference between any other highly porous acetabular component combination and no late revisions for aseptic loosening. CONCLUSION: Highly porous-coated titanium acetabular components have low rates of aseptic loosening with long-term follow-up. A difference between components may exist. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Survivorship Comparisons of Ultracongruent, Cruciate-Retaining and Posterior-Stabilized Tibial Inserts Using a Single Knee System Design: Results From the Australian Orthopedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry.

BACKGROUND: Ultracongruent (UC) tibial inserts can increase knee replacement stability, but how survivorship compares to cruciate retaining (CR) or posterior stabilized (PS) inserts is unclear. METHODS: Data from a large joint registry were used to calculate the cumulative percent revision of a single popular knee design used with different inserts. There were 67,523 procedures, of which 12,434 were UC, 21,635 CR, and 33,454 PS. Revision rates and reasons for revision were analyzed. RESULTS: The cumulative percent revision at 18 years was 8.3% for UC, 9.2% for CR, and 8.9% for PS. There was no difference when UC was compared to CR, but PS had a higher risk of revision. Revision reasons were similar. CONCLUSION: Compared to the CR, an UC insert did not increase revision rates and was actually lower than a PS insert. An UC insert does not compromise long-term total knee arthroplasty survivorship in the Genesis II prosthesis.

No Difference in Revision Rate Between Low Viscosity and High Viscosity Cement Used in Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Loosening remains one of the most common reasons for revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Cement viscosity has a potential role in reducing revision rates for loosening. The aim of this study was to assess the outcome for loosening of the 5 most used cemented knee prostheses by constraint type, based on the cement viscosity type used. METHODS: There were 214,708 TKA procedures performed between 1999 and 2020 for a diagnosis of osteoarthritis using the 5 most commonly used minimally stabilized, posterior stabilized, and medial pivot design cemented tibial components. Only procedures with a cemented tibial component were included. Outcomes for two different cement viscosities, 140,060 high viscosity and 74,648 low viscosity cement, were compared for each fixation type within each of the three stability groups. RESULTS: There was no difference in a risk of all-cause revision when high viscosity cement was used compared to low viscosity cement for minimally stabilized prostheses (hazards ratio [HR] 1.07 [95% CI 0.99-1.15], P = .09), posterior stabilized prostheses (HR 1.03 [95% CI 0.95-1.11], P = .53), and medial pivot design prostheses (HR 1.06 [95% CI 0.80-1.41], P = .67). No difference was observed between cement viscosity types for any of the prosthesis constraint types when aseptic loosening was assessed. CONCLUSIONS: We found no difference in the risk of revision for any reason, or for loosening, with cement viscosity for the most commonly used minimally stabilized, posterior stabilized, and medial pivot TKA. The role of cement viscosity in the risk of TKA revision remains unclear and further research is required. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III Retrospective comparative study.

A Comparison of Revision Rates for Osteoarthritis of Primary Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty to Primary Anatomic Shoulder Arthroplasty with a Cemented All-polyethylene Glenoid: Analysis from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry.

BACKGROUND: There has been decreased use of anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) because reverse TSA (rTSA) is increasingly being used for the same indications. Although short-term studies generally have not found survivorship differences between these implant designs, these studies are often small and their follow-up is limited to the short term. Likewise, the degree to which patient characteristics (such as gender, age, and American Society of Anesthesiologists [ASA] score) may or may not be associated with survivorship differences calls for larger and longer-term studies than is often possible in single-center designs. Large national registry studies may be able to help answer these questions. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: By analyzing a large Australian registry series of primary aTSAs with cemented all-polyethylene glenoids and rTSA for osteoarthritis (OA), we asked: (1) Is the revision risk for OA higher for aTSA with all-polyethylene glenoids or for rTSA, adjusting for patient characteristics such as age, gender, ASA score, and BMI? (2) Is the patient's gender associated with differences in the revision risk after controlling for the potentially confounding factors of age, ASA score, and BMI? METHODS: In this comparative, observational registry study performed between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2019, all primary aTSAs with all-polyethylene glenoids and rTSA for OA as determined by the treating surgeon and reported to our national registry formed two groups for analysis. The study period was set to time-match for the collection of ASA score and BMI in 2012 and 2015, respectively. Our registry enrolls more than 97% of all shoulder arthroplasties undertaken in Australia. There were 29,294 primary shoulder arthroplasties; 1592 hemiarthroplasties, 1876 resurfacing and stemless shoulders, 269 stemmed, and 11,674 reverse shoulder arthroplasties were excluded for other diagnoses. A total of 1210 metal-backed glenoids in stemmed aTSA for OA were excluded. A total of 3795 primary aTSAs with all-polyethylene glenoids and 8878 primary rTSAs for OA were compared. An aTSA with an all-polyethylene glenoid and rTSA were more likely to be performed in women (56% and 61% of patients, respectively). The mean age was 69 ± 8 years for aTSA with all-polyethylene glenoids and 74 ± 8 years for rTSA. One aTSA for OA was performed in a patient with an unknown glenoid type. The ASA score (n = 12,438) and BMI (n = 11,233) were also recorded. The maximum follow-up was 5 years for both groups, and the mean follow-up was 2.6 ± 1.4 years for aTSA with all-polyethylene glenoids and 2.1 ± 1.4 years for rTSA. The endpoint was time to revision (all causes), and the cumulative percent revision was determined using Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship (time to revision) and HRs from Cox proportional hazard models that were adjusted for age, gender, ASA score, and BMI category. RESULTS: Overall, there were no differences in the 4-year cumulative percent revision between the groups; the 4-year cumulative percent revision was 3.5% for aTSA with all-polyethylene glenoids (95% CI 2.9%-4.2%) and 3.0% for rTSA (95% CI 2.6%-3.5%). There was an increased risk of revision of rTSA compared with aTSA using all-polyethylene glenoids in the first 3 months (HR 2.17 [95% CI 1.25-3.70]; p = 0.006, adjusted for age, gender, ASA score, and BMI). After that time, there was no difference in the rate of revision, with the same adjustments. In the first 3 months, men undergoing rTSA had a higher rate of revision than men with aTSA using all-polyethylene glenoids (HR 4.0 [95% CI 1.72-9.09]; p = 0.001, adjusted for age, BMI, and ASA). There was no difference between men in the two groups after that time. Women with aTSA using all-polyethylene glenoids were at a greater risk of revision than women with rTSA from 3 months onward (HR 2.77 [95% CI 1.55-4.92]; p < 0.001, adjusted for age, BMI, and ASA), with no difference before that time. CONCLUSION: Given the absence of survivorship differences at 4 years between rTSA and aTSA, but in light of the differences in the revision risk between men and women, surgeons might select an aTSA with an all-polyethylene glenoid to treat OA, despite the current popularity of rTSA. However, there are survivorship differences between genders. Future studies should evaluate whether our comparative findings are replicated in men and women undergoing aTSA with all-polyethylene glenoids and rTSA for primary diagnoses such as rheumatoid arthritis or post-traumatic arthritis, and whether there are functional differences between the two implant designs when used for OA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

A Comparison of Revision Rates for Dislocation and Aseptic Causes Between Dual Mobility and Large Femoral Head Bearings in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty With Subanalysis by Acetabular Component Size: An Analysis of 106,163 Primary Total Hip Arthroplasties.

BACKGROUND: Dual mobility (DM) and large femoral head bearings (≥36 mm) both decrease the risk of dislocation in total hip arthroplasty (THA). There is limited comparable data in primary THA. This study compared the revision rates for dislocation and aseptic causes between DM and large femoral heads and subanalyzed by acetabular component size. METHODS: Data from the Australian Orthopedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry were analyzed for patients undergoing primary THA for osteoarthritis from January 2008 (the year of first recorded DM use) to December 2019. All DM and large femoral head bearings were identified. The primary outcome measure was the cumulative percent revision (CPR) for dislocation and for all aseptic causes. The results were adjusted by age, sex, and femoral fixation. A subanalysis was performed stratifying acetabular component diameter <58 m and ≥58 mm. RESULTS: There were 4942 DM and 101,221 large femoral head bearings recorded. There was no difference in the CPR for dislocation (HR = 0.69 (95% CI 0.42, 1.13), P = .138) or aseptic causes (HR = 0.91 (95% CI 0.70, 1.18), P = .457). When stratified by acetabular component size, DM reduced the CPR for dislocation in acetabular component diameter <58 mm (HR = 0.55 (95% CI 0.30, 1.00), P = .049). There was no difference for diameter ≥58 mm. There was no difference in aseptic revision when stratified by acetabular component diameter. CONCLUSION: There is no difference in revision rates for dislocation or aseptic causes between DM and large femoral heads in primary THA. When stratified by acetabular component size, DM reduces dislocation for acetabular component diameter <58 mm. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Hip Hemiarthroplasty for Fractured Neck of Femur Revised to Total Hip Arthroplasty: Outcomes Are Influenced by Patient Age Not Articulation Options.

BACKGROUND: Hip hemiarthroplasty is the most common arthroplasty option for fractured neck of femur (FNOF). Revision to total hip arthroplasty (THA) is occasionally required. This study aimed to assess the outcome of hemiarthroplasty revised to THA and to assess the impact of femoral head size, dual mobility (DM), and constrained liners. METHODS: All aseptic 1st revisions reported to the Australian Joint Replacement Registry after hemiarthroplasty performed for FNOF when a THA was used as the revision procedure were included from September 1999 to December 2019. The primary outcome measure was the cumulative percent revision for all-causes and dislocation. The impact of prosthesis factors on revision THA was assessed: standard head THA (≤32 mm), large head THA (≥36 mm), DM, and constrained liners. Outcomes were compared using Kaplan Meyer and competing risk. RESULTS: There were 96,861 hemiarthroplasties performed, with 985 revised to THA. The most common reasons for 1st revision were loosening (49.3%), fracture (17.7%), and dislocation (11.0%). Of the hemiarthroplasty procedures revised to THA, 76 had a 2nd revision. The most common reasons for 2nd revision were fracture (27.6%), dislocation (26.3%), loosening (23.7%), and infection (18.4%). Femoral head size, DM, or constrained liner use did not alter the incidence of all-cause 2nd revision. This did not change when solely looking at patients still alive. A 2nd revision was more likely in patients aged <75 years. CONCLUSION: The outcome of hemiarthroplasty performed for FNOF revised to THA is influenced by patient age, not by the articulation used.

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.

The rate of 2nd revision for shoulder arthroplasty as analyzed by the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR).

Background and purpose - The increase in shoulder arthroplasty may lead to a burden of revision surgery. This study compared the rate of (2nd) revision following aseptic 1st revision shoulder arthroplasty, considering the type of primary, and the class and type of the revision.Patients and methods - All aseptic 1st revisions of primary total reverse shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA group) and of primary total stemmed and stemless total shoulder arthroplasty (non-rTSA group) procedures reported to our national registry between April 2004 to December 2018 were included. The rate of 2nd revision was determined using Kaplan-Meier estimates and comparisons were made using Cox proportional hazards models.Results - There was an increased risk of 2nd revision in the 1st month only for the rTSA group (n = 700) compared with the non-rTSA group (n = 991); hazard ratio (HR) = 4.8 (95% CI 2.2-9). The cumulative percentage of 2nd revisions (CPR) was 24% in the rTSA group and 20% in the non-rTSA group at 8 years. There was an increased risk of 2nd revision for the type (cup vs. head) HR = 2.2 (CI 1.2-4.2), but not class of revision for the rTSA group. Minor (> 3 months) vs. major class revision, and humeral revision vs. all other revision types were second revision risk factors for the non-rTSA group.Interpretation - The CPR of revision shoulder arthroplasty was > 20% at 8 years and was influenced by the type of primary, the class, and the type of revision. The most common reasons for 2nd revision were instability/dislocation, loosening, and infection.

Is the Survivorship of Birmingham Hip Resurfacing Better Than Selected Conventional Hip Arthroplasties in Men Younger Than 65 Years of Age? A Study from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry.

BACKGROUND: The Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) prosthesis is the most commonly used metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty device. The current manufacturer-recommended target demographic for the BHR is male patients, younger than 65 years requiring a femoral head size of ≥ 50 mm. Female patients, older patients, and individuals with smaller femoral-head diameter (≤ 50 mm) are known to have higher revision rates. Prior studies suggest that the survivorship of the BHR when used in the target demographic is comparable with that of primary conventional THA, but comparing survivorship of the most durable hip resurfacing arthroplasty device to the survivorship of all conventional THA prostheses is not ideal because the THA group comprises a large number of different types of prostheses that have considerable variation in prosthesis survival. A more informative comparison would be with the THA implants with the best survivorship, as this might help address the question of whether survivorship in the BHR target population can be improved by using a well-performing conventional THA. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We compared the difference in cumulative percent revision, reasons for revision and types of revision for procedures reported to the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) using the BHR prosthesis (femoral-head size > 50 mm) and three conventional THA prostheses identified as having the lowest 10-year cumulative percent revision in the currently recommended BHR target population to ask: (1) Does the BHR have a lower cumulative revision rate than the group of three conventional THA prostheses? (2) Is there a difference in the revision diagnosis between the BHR and the three best conventional THA prostheses? (3) What is the difference in the components used for a revision of a BHR compared with the three best conventional THA prostheses? METHODS: Data reported to the AOANJRR between September 1, 1999 and December 31, 2018 was used for this analysis. This study period includes almost the entire use of the BHR in Australia. The AOANJRR is a large national joint registry with almost 100% completeness, high accuracy, rigorous validation, and little to no loss to follow-up. The study population included males younger than 65 years that had received one hip replacement procedure for osteoarthritis. All patients with bilateral procedures, no matter the time interval between hips, were excluded. Only BHR prostheses with a femoral-head size ≥ 50 mm and conventional THA prostheses with femoral head sizes ≥ 32 mm and either ceramic-on-ceramic or metal, ceramic, ceramicized metal-on-crosslinked polyethylene (XLPE) bearings were included. These femoral head sizes and bearings were selected because they reflect modern conventional THA practice. There is no difference in the revision rate of these bearings in the AOANJRR. There were 4790 BHR procedures and 2696 conventional THA procedures in the study group. The mean (± SD) age for BHR procedures was 52 ± 7.8 years and 56 ± 7.1 years for conventional THA procedures. All comparative analyses were adjusted for age. Other demographics data including American Society Anesthesiologists (ASA) score and BMI were only included in AOANJRR data collection since 2012 and 2015, respectively, and have not been included in this analysis because of the low use of BHR in Australia since that time. The maximum follow-up was 18.7 years for both groups and mean follow-up of 11.9 years for the BHR and 9.3 years for the conventional THA group. 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. A revision was defined as removal, replacement or addition of any component of a joint replacement. Revisions can be further classified as major revisions (removal of a component articulating with bone-usually the stem and/or the shell) or minor revisions (removal of other components-usually the head and/or the liner). The unadjusted cumulative percent revision after the primary arthroplasty (with 95% confidence intervals) was calculated and compared using Cox proportional hazard models adjusted for age. RESULTS: The BHR prosthesis had a statistically higher rate of all-cause revision at 17 years than the selected conventional THA prostheses (HR 2.77 [95% CI 1.78 to 4.32]; p < 0.001). The revision diagnoses differed between the groups, with the BHR demonstrating a higher revision rate for loosening after 2 years than the conventional THA protheses (HR 4.64 [95% CI 1.66 to 12.97]; p = 0.003), as well as a higher fracture rate during the entire period (HR 2.57 [95% CI 1.24 to 5.33]; p = 0.01). There was a lower revision rate for infection for the BHR compared with the THA group in the first 5 years, with no difference between the two groups after this time. All revisions of the BHR were major revisions (such as, removal or exchange of the femoral and/or acetabular components) and this occurred in 4.5% of the primary BHR procedures. Major revision was the most common type of revision for primary THA accounting for 1.7% of all primary THA procedures. Minor revisions (head, inset or both) were undertaken in a further 0.6% of primary THA procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Given the increasing revision risk of the BHR compared with better-performing conventional THA prostheses in the target population, we recommend that patients be counseled about this risk. We suggest that a THA with proven low revision rates might be the better choice, particularly for patients who are concerned about implant durability. Well-controlled prospective studies that show appreciable clinically important differences in patient-reported outcomes and functional results favoring the BHR over conventional THA prostheses using modern bearings are needed to justify the use of the BHR in view of this revision risk. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Feasibility of establishing an Australian ACL registry: a pilot study by the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR).

PURPOSE: Rupture of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) is a common and debilitating injury that impacts significantly on knee function and risks the development of degenerative arthritis. The outcome of ACL surgery is not monitored in Australia. The optimal treatment is unknown. Consequently, the identification of best practice in treating ACL is crucial to the development of improved outcomes. The Australian Knee Society (AKS) asked the Australian Orthopaedic Association (AOA) to consider establishing a national ACL registry. As a first step, a pilot study was undertaken by the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) to test the hypothesis that collecting the required information in the Australian setting was possible. METHODS: Surgeons completed an operative form which provided comprehensive information on the surgery undertaken. Patients provided pre- and post-operative questionnaires including the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) and the Marx Activity Scale (MA Scale). The number of ACL procedures undertaken at each hospital during the recruitment period was compared against State Government Health Department separation data. RESULTS: A total of 802 patients were recruited from October 2011 to January 2013. The overall capture rate for surgeon-derived data was 99%, and the capture rate for the pre-operative patient questionnaire was 97.9%. At 6 months, patient-reported outcomes were obtained from 55% of patients, and 58.5% of patients at 12 months. When checked against State Government Health Department separation data, 31.3% of procedures undertaken at each study hospital were captured in the study. CONCLUSION: It is possible to collect surgeon-derived and pre-operative patient-reported data, following ACL reconstruction in Australia. The need to gain patient consent was a limiting factor to participation. When patients did consent to participate in the study, we were able to capture nearly 100% of surgical procedures. Patient consent would not be an issue in for a national registry where inclusion is automatic unless the patient wishes to opt out. The collection of post-operative patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) is more problematic, due to an insufficient proportion of individuals providing patient-reported outcomes. Alternative outcome measures are required for an ACL registry in Australia to be successfully implemented. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic, Level III.

Improvements in physical function and pain sustained for up to 10 years after knee or hip arthroplasty irrespective of mental health status before surgery.

Background and purpose - There are concerns that mental health (MH) may influence outcomes of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) or total hip arthroplasty (THA). We examined effects of poor MH before surgery on long-term outcomes of osteoarthritis-related TKA or THA in women. Patients and methods - The data were from 9,737 middle-aged participants (47-52 years) and 9,292 older participants (73-78 years) in the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women's Health who completed surveys between 1998 and 2013. Dates of arthroplasties were obtained from the Australian Orthopaedics Association National Joint Replacement Registry. Participants without procedures were matched with participants with procedures. Trajectories of the Short-Form 36 scores for physical functioning, bodily pain, social functioning, and mental health based on mixed modeling were plotted for participants with and without surgery (stratified according to mental health, separately for TKA and THA, and for middle-aged and older participants). Results - In middle-aged women with poor and good MH, TKA improved physical function and reduced bodily pain, with improvements sustained up to 10 years after surgery. TKA contributed to restoration of social function in women with good MH, but this was less clear in women with poor MH. In both MH groups, mental health appeared to be unaffected by TKA. Similar patterns were observed after THA, and in older women. Interpretation - Recovery of physical and social function and reductions in pain were sustained for up to 10 years after surgery. Improvements in physical function and pain were also observed in women with poor mental health. Thus, in our view poor mental health should not be a contraindication for arthroplasty.

Investigating the formal countermeasures and informal strategies used to mitigate SPAD risk in train driving.

Various countermeasures are used to mitigate signal passed at danger (SPAD) events on railways, yet they continue. While risk factors that destabilise cognitive processes have been identified, less has been published on the relationship between these factors and the informal strategies that drivers themselves adopt to reduce individual SPAD risk. This study aimed to address this gap and used a participative approach to collect and thematically analyse data from 28 drivers across eight rail organisations in Australia and New Zealand. The results showed not all formal countermeasures were considered effective, and identified several informal strategies. These aimed to reduce task disruption, service distortion and maintain connectedness to signals. While some evidenced redundancies in the task and cab, others did not reduce baseline risk. This paper explores the relationship between the established risks and identified strategies towards evaluating the utility of formal and informal mitigations. The research has application to the investigation of collision risk in all transport domains. Practitioner Summary: A participative approach was used to investigate SPAD mitigation techniques in train driving, and to explore risk-strategy relationship dynamics. Several informal strategies designed to reduce task disruption, service distortion and maintain signal connectedness were identified. While some evidenced redundancies in the task and cab, others did not reduce baseline risk.

The Effect of Surgical Approach and Femoral Prosthesis Type on Revision Rates Following Total Hip Arthroplasty: An Analysis of the Most Commonly Utilized Cementless Stems.

BACKGROUND: Compared with other total hip arthroplasty (THA) approaches, the anterior approach has an increased rate of revision for femoral-sided complications, and certain stems may increase this risk. The present study aimed to assess the outcome of THA by surgical approach, according to the femoral stem utilized in the procedure. METHODS: Data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry were analyzed for patients undergoing primary THA for osteoarthritis via the anterior or posterior approach with use of 1 of 5 of the most common cementless femoral stems from January 2015 to December 2019. The primary outcome measures were the cumulative percent revision (CPR) for all causes and for femoral stem loosening and fracture. The CPR was compared between THAs performed via the anterior and posterior approaches for all stems and for each individual femoral stem, as well as between individual femoral stems for each approach. RESULTS: The study included 48,716 THAs performed with use of cementless stems, of which 22,840 utilized an anterior approach and 25,876 utilized a posterior approach. There was no difference in the all-cause CPR between the anterior and the posterior approach, but the anterior approach had a higher CPR for loosening (hazard ratio [HR], 2.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.48 to 2.69; p < 0.001) and fracture (HR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.34 to 2.35; p < 0.001). There was apparent variation in the CPR across the different cementless stems when an anterior approach was utilized. The Quadra-H (Medacta) had a higher all-cause CPR when compared with the Polarstem (Smith & Nephew; HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.16 to 1.91; p = 0.002) and Corail (DePuy Synthes; HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.70; p = 0.0478). Variation was less apparent with the posterior approach. CONCLUSIONS: THAs performed via the anterior approach had higher rates of revision for femoral stem loosening and fracture, with greater variation in outcomes between individual stems. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

A Comparison of Revision Rates and Dislocation After Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty with 28, 32, and 36-mm Femoral Heads and Different Cup Sizes: An Analysis of 188,591 Primary Total Hip Arthroplasties.

UPDATE: This article was updated on August 17, 2022, because of previous errors, which were discovered after the preliminary version of the article was posted online. On page 1462, in the first sentence of the Abstract section entitled "Results," the phrase that had read "and 36-mm heads had fewer dislocations than 28-mm (HR = 0.33 [95% CI, 0.16 to 0.68]; p = 0.003), but more dislocations than 32-mm heads (HR for >2 weeks = 2.25 [95% CI, 1.13 to 4.49]; p = 0.021)" now reads "and 36-mm heads had fewer dislocations than 28-mm (HR = 0.33 [95% CI, 0.16 to 0.68]; p = 0.003) and 32-mm heads (HR for ≥2 weeks = 0.44 [95% CI, 0.22 to 0.88]; p = 0.021)." On page 1468, in the last sentence of the section entitled "Acetabular Components with a Diameter of <51 mm," the phrase that had read "and HR for ≥2 weeks = 2.25 [95% CI, 1.13 to 4.49; p = 0.021]) ( Fig. 3 )" now reads "and HR for ≥2 weeks = 0.44 [95% CI, 0.22 to 0.88; p = 0.021]) ( Fig. 3 )." Finally, on page 1466, in the upper right corner of Figure 3 , under "32mm vs 36mm," the second line that had read "2Wks+: HR=2.25 (1.13, 4.49), p=0.021" now reads "2Wks+: HR=0.44 (0.22, 0.88), p= 0.021."

The acetabular component diameter can influence the choice of femoral head size in total hip arthroplasty (THA). We compared the rates of revision by femoral head size for different acetabular component sizes. Data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry were analyzed for patients undergoing primary THA for a diagnosis of osteoarthritis from September 1999 to December 2019. Acetabular components were stratified into quartiles by size: <51 mm, 51 to 53 mm, 54 to 55 mm, and 56 to 66 mm. Femoral head sizes of 28 mm, 32 mm, and 36 mm were compared for each cup size. The primary outcome was the cumulative percent revision (CPR) for all aseptic causes and for dislocation. The results were adjusted for age, sex, femoral fixation, femoral head material, year of surgery, and surgical approach and were stratified by femoral head material. For acetabular components of <51 mm, 32-mm (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.75 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.57 to 0.97]; p = 0.031) and 36-mm femoral heads (HR = 0.58 [95% CI, 0.38 to 0.87]; p = 0.008) had a lower CPR for aseptic causes than 28-mm heads; and 36-mm heads had fewer dislocations than 28-mm (HR = 0.33 [95% CI, 0.16 to 0.68]; p = 0.003), and 32-mm heads (HR for ≥2 weeks = 0.44 [95% CI, 0.22 to 0.88]; p = 0.021). For 51 to 53-mm, 54 to 55-mm, and 56 to 66-mm-diameter acetabular components, there was no difference in the CPR for aseptic causes among head sizes. A femoral head size of 36 mm had fewer dislocations in the first 2 weeks than a 32-mm head for the 51 to 53-mm acetabular components (HR for <2 weeks = 3.79 [95% CI, 1.23 to 11.67]; p = 0.020) and for the entire period for 56 to 66-mm acetabular components (HR = 1.53 [95% CI, 1.05 to 2.23]; p = 0.028). The reasons for revision differed for each femoral head size. There was no difference in the CPR between metal and ceramic heads. There is no clear advantage to any single head size except with acetabular components of <51 mm, in which 32-mm and 36-mm femoral heads had lower rates of aseptic revision. If stability is prioritized, 36-mm femoral heads may be indicated. Therapeutic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

National Implementation of an Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Program for Joint Replacement Surgery: Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND: There is a global emphasis on expanding data collection for joint replacement procedures beyond implant attributes and progression to revision surgery. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly considered as an important measure of surgical outcomes from a patient's perspective. However, a major limitation preventing wider use of PROMs data in national data collection has been the inability to systematically collect and share electronic information with relevant stakeholders in a comprehensive and financially sustainable manner. OBJECTIVE: This study reports on the development of an electronic data capture and reporting system by a national registry for the collection of PROMs and the processes used to identify and overcome barriers to implementation and uptake. The study also aims to provide a cost breakdown of establishing and maintaining a nationwide electronic PROMs program. METHODS: Between 2018 and 2020, 3 governance and advisory committees were established to develop and implement a PROMs pilot program nested within a nationwide joint replacement registry. The program involved electronic collection of preoperative and 6-month postoperative data for hip, knee, or shoulder replacement surgery from 44 Australian hospitals. Resource requirements for the program included a project manager, software developers, data manager, and statistician. An online platform was tested, refined, and implemented for electronic PROMs collection with scalability considered for future expansion to all Australian hospitals and additional data fields. Technical capabilities included different access for multiple user types, patient registration, automatic reminders via SMS text messages and email, online consent, and patient outcome real-time dashboards accessible for different user groups (surgeons, patients, hospitals, and project stakeholders). RESULTS: During the PROMs pilot period there were 19,699 primary procedures undertaken with 10,204 registered procedures in the electronic system. This equated to 51.80% of people who had a joint replacement at participating hospitals during this period. Patient registration and data collection were efficient (20-30 seconds and 10-12 minutes, respectively). Engagement with the reporting dashboards (as a proportion of those who viewed their dashboard) varied by user group: 197/277 (71.1%) hospital administrators, 68/129 (52.7%) project stakeholders, 177/391 (45.3%) surgeons, and 1138/8840 patients (12.9%). Cost analysis determined an overall cost per patient of Aus $7-15 (approximately US $5-12) for 2 PROMs collections per joint replacement procedure once the program was established. CONCLUSIONS: Successful implementation of an orthopedic PROMs program with planned scalability for a broader national rollout requires significant funding and staffing resources. However, this expenditure can be considered worthwhile, given that collection and reporting of PROMs can drive health care improvement processes. Further consideration of strategies to improve stakeholder engagement with electronic reporting dashboards (particularly for patients and surgeons) will be critical to the ongoing success of a national PROMs program.