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

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

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

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

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

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

Choice of Bearings Influences the Implant Survival of Total Hip Arthroplasty in Patients Who Have Osteoarthritis Aged 55 Years or More: Results of 158,044 Patients From the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association From 2005 to 2017.

BACKGROUND: The aim of our study was to compare implant survival rates of different total hip arthroplasty (THA) bearings in the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association. METHODS: All conventional primary THAs performed between 2005 and 2017 in patients aged more than 55 years who had primary osteoarthritis were studied. Metal-on-highly cross-linked polyethylene (MoXLP), ceramic-on-highly cross-linked polyethylene (CoXLP), ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC), and metal-on-metal (MoM) bearings were included. The outcome was a revision. Kaplan-Meier (KM) estimates were calculated at 5 and 10 years. The risk for revision was analyzed using a flexible parametric survival model adjusted for nation, age, sex, femoral head size, and femoral fixation. RESULTS: A total of 158,044 THAs were included. The 5-year KM estimates were 95.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 95.8 to 96.1) in MoXLP, 95.8% (95% CI 95.6 to 96.1) in CoXLP, 96.7% (95% CI 96.4 to 97.0) in CoC, and 93.9% (95% CI 93.5 to 94.4) in MoM. The 10-years KM estimates were 94.2% (94.0 to 94.5) in MoXLP, 94.3% (93.9 to 94.8) in CoXLP, 95.4% (95.0 to 95.9) in CoC, and 85.5% (84.9 to 86.2) in MoM. Compared with MoXLP, the adjusted risk for revision was lower in CoC (hazard ratio [HR] 0.6, CI 0.5 to 0.6), similar in CoXLP (HR 1.0, CI 0.9 to 1.0), and higher in MoM (HR 1.3, CI 1.2 to 1.4). CONCLUSIONS: We found that MoXLP, CoXLP, and CoC bearings evinced comparably high implant survival rates up to 10 years, and they can all be regarded as safe options in this patient group. The MoM bearings were associated with clearly lower survivorship. The CoC bearings had the highest implant survival and a lower adjusted risk for revision compared with highly cross-linked polyethylene bearings.

Influence of design features and brand of reverse shoulder arthroplasties on survivorship and reasons for revision surgery: results of 5,494 arthroplasties with up to 15 years' follow-up reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register 2007-2022.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: We aimed to report the survival of different reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) designs and brands, and factors associated with revision. The secondary aim was to evaluate the reasons for revision. METHODS: We included 4,696 inlay and 798 onlay RSAs reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register (NAR) 2007-2022. Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship and Cox models adjusted for age, sex, diagnosis, implant design, humeral fixation, and previous surgery were investigated to assess revision risks. The reasons for revision were compared using competing risk analysis. RESULTS: Overall, the 10-year survival rate was 94% (confidence interval [CI] 93-95). At 5 years all brands exceeded 90%. Compared with Delta Xtend (n = 3,865), Aequalis Ascend Flex (HR 2.8, CI 1.7-4.6), Aequalis Reversed II (HR 2.2, CI 1.2-4.2), SMR (HR 2.5, CI 1.3-4.7), and Promos (HR 2.2, CI 1.0-4.9) had increased risk of revision. Onlay and inlay RSAs had similar risk of revision (HR 1.2, CI 0.8-1.8). Instability and deep infection were the most frequent revision causes. Male sex (HR 2.3, CI 1.7-3.1), fracture sequelae (HR 3.1, CI 2.1-5.0), and fractures operated on with uncemented humeral stems had increased risk of revision (HR 3.5, CI 1.6-7.3). CONCLUSION: We found similar risk of revision with inlay and onlay designs. Some prosthesis brands had a higher rate of revision than the most common implant, but numbers were low.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Risk of total hip arthroplasty after elite sport: linking 3304 former world-class athletes with the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register.

OBJECTIVES: At present, there is no cure for osteoarthritis (OA), but severe hip joint degeneration can require total hip arthroplasty (THA). The literature on OA after elite sport is limited. We hypothesise that elite athletic activity increases the risk of receiving a THA later in life. METHODS: We linked a cohort of former Norwegian world-class athletes (1402 females and 1902 males, active 1936-2006) to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register (THA performed 1987-2020). We used standardised incidence ratio (SIR), one-minus Kaplan-Meier and relative Cox regression (relative HR, RHR), with 95% CIs, and funnel plots at age 75, to assess THA risk for different sport disciplines, joint impact categories of sport disciplines and sex. The risk of THA for the corresponding general Norwegian population was used as reference. RESULTS: We found an overall increased risk for THA for the former elite athletes (SIR 2.11, 95% CI 1.82 to 2.40) at age 75 years, compared with the general population. THA risk at age 75 years was 11.6% for female athletes and 8.3% for male athletes. SIR was 1.90 (95% CI 1.49 to 2.31) for female and 2.28 (95% CI 1.87 to 2.70) for male athletes. Among males, high joint impact sport disciplines were associated with increased risk compared with low-impact sport disciplines (RHR 1.81, 95% CI 1.06 to 3.08, p=0.029). CONCLUSION: Having been an elite athlete was associated with a doubling of THA risk compared with the general population for both sexes. High joint impact sport disciplines were associated with subsequent THA for male athletes.

Risk factors for revision surgery due to dislocation within 1 year after 111,711 primary total hip arthroplasties from 2005 to 2019: a study from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Dislocation of a hip prosthesis is the 3rd most frequent cause (after loosening and infection) for hip revision in Norway. Recently there has been a shift in surgical practice including preferred head size, surgical approach, articulation, and fixation. We explored factors associated with the risk of revision due to dislocation within 1 year and analyzed the impact of changes in surgical practice. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 111,711 cases of primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register were included (2005-2019) after primary THA with either 28 mm, 32 mm, or 36 mm femoral heads, or dualmobility articulations. A flexible parametric survival model was used to calculate hazard ratios for risk factors. Kaplan-Meier survival rates were calculated. RESULTS: There was an increased risk of revision due to dislocation with 28 mm femoral heads (HR 2.6, 95% CI 2.0-3.3) compared with 32 mm heads. Furthermore, there was a reduced risk of cemented fixation (HR 0.6, CI 0.5-0.8) and reverse hybrid (HR 0.6, CI 0.5-0.8) compared with uncemented. Also, both anterolateral (HR 0.5, CI 0.4-0.7) and lateral (HR 0.6, CI 0.5-0.7) approaches were associated with a reduced risk compared with the posterior approach. The time-period 2010-2014 had the lowest risk of revision due to dislocation. The trend during the study period was towards using larger head sizes, a posterior approach, and uncemented fixation for primary THA. INTERPRETATION: Patients with 28 mm head size, a posterior approach, or uncemented fixation had an increased risk of revision due to dislocation within 1 year after primary THA. The shift from lateral to posterior approach and more uncemented fixation was a plausible explanation for the increased risk of revision due to dislocation observed in the most recent time-period. The increased risk of revision due to dislocation was not fully compensated for by increasing femoral head size from 28 to 32 mm.

Association of perioperative thromboprophylaxis on revision rate due to infection and aseptic loosening in primary total hip arthroplasty - new evidence from the Nordic Arthroplasty Registry Association (NARA).

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Results regarding the impact of anticoagulants on revision rate are conflicting. We examined the association between the use of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) or non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) as thromboprophylaxis after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) and the revision rate due to infection, aseptic loosening, and all causes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a cohort study (n = 53,605) based on prospectively collected data from the national hip arthroplasty registries from Denmark and Norway. The outcome was time to revision due to infection, aseptic loosening, and all causes, studied separately. Kaplan-Meier (KM) survival analysis and a Cox proportional hazard model was used to estimate implant survival and cause-specific hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) adjusting for age, sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index, fixation type, start, and duration of thromboprophylaxis, and preoperative use of Vitamin K antagonists, NOAC, aspirin, and platelet inhibitors as confounders. RESULTS: We included 40,451 patients in the LMWH group and 13,154 patients in the NOAC group. Regarding revision due to infection, the 1-year and 5-year KM survival was 99% in both the LMWH group and in the NOAC group. During the entire follow-up period, the adjusted HR for revision due to infection was 0.9 (CI 0.7-1.1), 1.6 (CI 1.3-2.1) for aseptic loosening, and 1.2 (CI 1.1-1.4) for all-cause revision for the NOAC compared with the LMWH group. The absolute differences in revision rates between the groups varied from 0.2% to 1%. INTERPRETATION: Compared with LMWH, NOACs were associated with a slightly lower revision rate due to infection, but higher revisions rates due to aseptic loosening and all-cause revision. The absolute differences between groups are small and most likely not clinically relevant. In addition, the observed associations might partly be explained by selection bias and unmeasured confounding, and should be a topic for further research.

Association between duration of anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis and revision rate in primary total hip arthroplasty: a Danish and Norwegian nationwide cohort study.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: There are concerns that bleeding following primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) contributes to prolonged wound drainage and prosthetic joint infection (PJI). We examined whether short (1-5 days), medium (6-14 days), and extended (≥ 15 days) duration of thromboprophylaxis is associated with the 5-year revision rate after THA due to osteoarthritis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a cohort study based on data from hip arthroplasty and administrative registries in Denmark and Norway (2008-2014). The outcome was revision surgery due to PJI, aseptic loosening or any cause, and patient mortality. Adjusted cause-specific hazard ratios (HRs) were analyzed with Cox regression analyses. RESULTS: Among 50,482 THA patients, 8,333 received short, 17,009 received medium, and 25,140 received extended thromboprophylaxis. The HRs for revision due to PJI within 5 years were 1.0 (95%CI 0.7-1.3) and 1.1 (CI 0.9-1.3) for short and extended vs. medium treatment, whereas HR for extended vs. medium prophylaxis was 1.5 (CI 1.2-2.0) within 3 months. The HRs for revision due to aseptic loosening within 5 years were 1.0 (CI 0.7-1.4) and 1.1 (CI 0.9-1.4) for short and extended vs. medium treatment. The HRs for any revision within 5 years were 0.9 (CI 0.8-1.1) and 0.9 (CI 0.8-1.0) for short and extended vs. medium treatment. Extended vs. medium prophylaxis was associated with a decreased 0-3 month mortality. The absolute differences at 5 years were ≤ 1%. CONCLUSION: Our data suggests no association between duration of anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis and revision rate within 5 years of primary THA. The extended thromboprophylaxis might be associated with early increased revision rate due to PJI but also with lower mortality; however, the clinical relevance of this finding requires further research.

Impact of Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA) collaboration on demographics, methods and revision rates in knee arthroplasty: a register-based study from NARA 2000-2017.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: We have previously observed differences in treatment and outcome of knee arthroplasties in the Nordic countries. To evaluate the impact of Nordic collaboration in the last 15 years we aimed to compare patient demographics, methods, and revision rates in primary knee arthroplasties among the 4 Nordic countries. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We included 535,051 primary knee arthroplasties reported 2000-2017 from the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA) database. Kaplan-Meier analysis (KM) and restricted mean survival time (RMST) analysis were used to evaluate the cumulative revision rate (CRR) and RMST estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and to compare countries in relation to risk of revision for any reason. RESULTS: After 2010, the increase in incidence of knee arthroplasty plateaued in Sweden and Denmark but continued to increase in Finland and Norway. In 2017 the incidence was highest in Finland with 226 per 105 person-years, while it was less than 150 per 105 in the 3 other Nordic countries. In total knee arthroplasties performed for osteoarthritis (OA), overall CRR at 15 years for revision due to any reason was higher in Denmark (CRR 9.6%, 95% CI 9.2-10), Norway (CRR 9.1%, CI 8.7-9.5), and Finland (CRR 7.0%, CI 6.8-7.3) compared with Sweden (CRR 6.6%, CI 6.4-6.8). There were differences among the countries in use of implant brand and type, fixation, patellar component, and use of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. INTERPRETATION: We evinced a slowing growth of incidence of knee arthroplasties in the Nordic countries after 2010 with Finland having the highest incidence. We also noted substantial differences among the 4 Nordic countries, with Sweden having a lower risk of revision than the other countries. No impact of NARA could be demonstrated and CRR did not improve over time.