Is American Joint Replacement Registry Data Consistent With International Survivorship in Hip and Knee Arthroplasty? A Comparative Analysis.

BACKGROUND: In collaboration with the Orthopedic Data Evaluation Panel (ODEP), the American Joint Replacement Registry (AJRR) investigated the consistency of hip and knee arthroplasty survivorship results compared to the UK National Joint Registry (NJR). METHODS: A total of three primary knee devices and three primary hip devices were selected by AJRR and ODEP with known variation in performance. Implant manufacturers independently produced Kaplan Meier survivorship based on NJR data and submitted to ODEP for comparison. The AJRR mirrored the methodology, and results from both sources were stratified into three cohorts (all-age, < 65, and ≥ 65 years). RESULTS: There were 42,671 AJRR and 60,439 NJR primary knee cases and 70,169 AJRR and 422,657 NJR primary total hip arthroplasty cases. For TKA, performance between the AJRR and NJR were consistent, showing similar trends for comparatively high and low performing devices. Both PS and CR devices showed statistical agreement in survivorship for all 3 cohorts. Unicompartmental comparison also showed statistical agreement for the Medicare cohort. The all-age and < 65-year-old cohorts showed similar trends and reached statistical agreement through 7 and 6 years. For total hip arthroplasty, performance between the AJRR and NJR were consistent, showing similar trends for comparatively high and low performing devices; 0.18% average difference in survivorship at final follow-up (8 years). One femoral device did not reach statistical agreement but showed only 0.61% difference in survivorship. The remaining acetabular and femoral devices reached statistical agreement in all-ages and through 7 and 8 years in the ≥ 65-year-old cohort. CONCLUSIONS: AJRR and NJR performance trends and survivorship were similar across hip and knee arthroplasty with greatest consistency in the all-age and ≥ 65 cohorts. This focused comparison of survivorship showed encouraging results for reliability of patient outcomes in AJRR compared to the world's largest joint arthroplasty registry which has strong implications for global improvement in patient safety.

Could Peer Support Programs Be a Good Resource for Managing the Unmet Needs of Cancer Patients?

The number of cancer patients has been rapidly increasing, and while there have been wide variations, cancer survival rates also improved globally. Despite the improved survival rates, supportive care needs of cancer patients have been unmet in various domains. The current study aimed to investigate unmet needs that had potential to be managed by peer supports according to cancer trajectories. We used the comprehensive needs assessment tool in cancer (CNAT) and a modified CNAT to evaluate the unmet needs and peer support needs of cancer patients at the tertiary hospital of South Korea. Of the 402 participants, 335 (83.3%) needed peer support. For patients who had been diagnosed with cancer for more than 5 years, the highest proportion of peer support needs to unmet supportive care was reported in information domain (92.9%). Patients with advanced cancer reported peer support needs in the social/religious/spiritual (84.4%) and practical domains (81.1%). Most of stomach cancer patients needed peer supports to receive information (96.6%). The need for peer supports in the information domain was reported highest according to longer survival period and also according to advanced cancer stages. The proportion of peer support needs in unmet supportive care varied by cancer type. Further interventional studies are needed to investigate satisfaction with peer support in specific domains.

Mid-Term Outcomes of Dual Mobility Acetabular Cups for Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated (1) survivorship, (2) clinical outcomes, (3) complications, and (4) radiographic outcomes of dual mobility (DM) systems when compared to fixed-bearing prostheses in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). METHODS: A cohort of 85 patients who underwent revision THA using DM implants were compared to a prior matching cohort of 170 patients who received fixed-bearing implants. Mean follow-up time was 4 years in the DM cohort and 10 years in the fixed-bearing cohort. Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed to assess survivorships. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using the Harris Hip Score (HHS). Complications and radiographs were evaluated and reported at the final follow-up. RESULTS: Overall aseptic and all-cause survivorships of the DM cohort were 96.5% and 95.3% compared to 94.7% and 93.5% in fixed-bearing cohort (P = .01 for aseptic and all-cause survivorships). The DM cohort had statistically significant higher survivorship when compared at equivalent follow-up interval in the fixed-bearing cohort. There were 3 aseptic (one due to dislocation) and 1 septic revision in the DM cohort compared to 9 aseptic (6 due to dislocation) and 2 septic revisions in the fixed-bearing cohort. Postoperative HHS scores were 88 and 86 points in the DM and fixed-bearing cohorts. However, the difference in mean improvement in HHS scores from preoperative to postoperative (ΔHHS) was not statistically significant (35 vs 34, P = .533). Except for the aforementioned revisions, there were no progressive radiolucencies or osteolysis on radiographic evaluation in both cohorts. CONCLUSION: DM articulations demonstrated superior survivorship at equal follow-up intervals when compared to fixed-bearing implants and showed a trend toward lower dislocation rates.

The role of surgical resection in patients with brain metastases.

Brain metastasis is a devastating complication of systemic malignancy that affects a considerable number of cancer patients. The appearance of brain metastases is often considered to be a sign of poor prognosis; in patients with brain metastases poor survival time has been reported in the literature. Therefore, treatment of these brain lesions in cancer patients is important for quality of life, providing local tumour control, preventing death from neurological causes, and improving survival, although potentially only in a minority of patients. Surgical resection of brain metastases has been the cornerstone treatment in select patients. Careful patient selection, the use of appropriate surgical techniques, and surgical adjuncts are the major determinants of favourable outcome in patients undergoing resection of brain metastases. In this review, we explain the role of surgical resection in the treatment of patients with brain metastases with consideration of patient selection, surgical techniques and the use of intraoperative adjuncts.