What Are the Relative Associations of Surgeon Performance and Prosthesis Quality With THA Revision Rates?

BACKGROUND: Many factors, including some related to the patient, implant selection, and the surgeon's skill and expertise, likely contribute to the risk of THA revision. However, surgeon factors have not been extensively analyzed in national joint replacement registries, and there is limited insight into their potential as a confounding variable for revision outcomes; for example, if surgeons with higher revision rates choose more successful prostheses, would this alone reduce their revision rate? QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: This study used Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) data for patients receiving primary THA for a diagnosis of osteoarthritis to answer the following questions: (1) Will the difference in revision rates among surgeons change or disappear when only procedures performed with the best prostheses or prostheses that have been identified as having higher revision rates are considered? (2) Is the benefit associated with using the best-performing prostheses different among surgeons with different revision rates? (3) Do the reasons for revision differ between surgeons with higher rates of revision compared with surgeons with lower rates of revision? METHODS: All primary THA procedures performed and recorded in the AOANJRR for osteoarthritis from September 1, 1999, to December 31, 2022, were considered for inclusion. Each THA prosthesis used was categorized per the AOANJRR as superior-performing, middle-performing, or identified as having a higher rate of revision by the AOANJRR benchmarking process. Surgeons who had performed at least 50 procedures and had a recorded 2-year cumulative percent revision (CPR) were included. After applying these restrictions, the study consisted of 302,066 procedures performed by 476 known surgeons. For the primary outcome measure of all-cause revision, we examined the variation in all-cause revision rates across individual surgeons when different classes of devices were used to assess whether differences between surgeons persisted when accounting for prosthesis selection. For the purposes of descriptively comparing reasons for revision between surgeons with higher-than-average or lower-than-average risk of revision, surgeons were classified into quartiles and outcomes compared when these surgeons used the same class of prosthesis. RESULTS: The difference in rates of revision among surgeons remained even after accounting for the effects of the prosthesis used. For any given surgeon, identified prostheses were associated with higher revision rates compared with both superior-performing prostheses (HR 1.73 [95% CI 1.57 to 1.92]; p < 0.01) and medium-performing prostheses (HR 1.31 [95% CI 1.20 to 1.43]; p < 0.01). All surgeons demonstrated a lower revision rate when using a superior-performing prosthesis, but the difference was greatest for surgeons with the highest rates of revision. Surgeons with the lowest rates of revision had a 19-year CPR of 3.9% (95% CI 3.0% to 5.0%) when using a superior-performing prosthesis compared with 5.4% (95% CI 4.0% to 7.3%) for procedures in which an identified prosthesis was used. Surgeons with the highest rates of revision had a 19-year CPR of 10.9% (95% CI 8.6% to 13.8%) when using a superior-performing prosthesis, and this increased to 20.4% (95% CI 18.0% to 23.1%) for procedures in which an identified prosthesis was used. The reasons for revision differ between surgeons, with causes of revision likely preventable and not related to the prosthesis choice being apparent for surgeons with high revision rates. CONCLUSION: The choice of implant and the surgeon performing the index procedure both affected the risk of revision as well as the reasons for revision. Surgeons could improve the survivorship of the arthroplasties they perform by choosing implants identified by registries as having lower revision rates. Acceptance of the fact that surgeons have different revision rates is needed, and detailed analysis is required to explain why surgeons with high revision rates have increased rates of likely preventable revisions, and outside of prosthesis choice, how revision rates can be lowered. The influence of training, fellowship completion, ongoing education, patient selection, indications for surgery, and factors underlying prosthesis decision-making should be assessed. The surgeon performing THA is an important confounder that should be considered in future registry analyses. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Comparable low revision rates of stemmed and stemless total anatomic shoulder arthroplasties after exclusion of metal-backed glenoid components: a collaboration between the Australian and Danish national shoulder arthroplasty registries.

BACKGROUND: The stemmed anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty is the gold standard in the treatment of glenohumeral osteoarthritis. However, the use of stemless total shoulder arthroplasties has increased in recent years. The number of revision procedures are relatively low, and therefore it has been recommended that national joint replacement registries should collaborate when comparing revision rates. Therefore, we aimed to compare the revision rates of stemmed and stemless TSA used for the diagnosis of glenohumeral osteoarthritis using data from both the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) and the Danish Shoulder Arthroplasty Registry (DSR). METHODS: We included all patients who were registered in the AOANJRR and the DSR from January 1, 2012, to December 2021 with an anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty used for osteoarthritis. Revision for any reason was used as the primary outcome. We used the Kaplan-Meier method to illustrate the cumulative revision rates and a multivariate cox regression model to calculate the hazard ratios. All analyses were performed separately for data from AOANJRR and DSR, and the results were then reported using a qualitative approach. RESULTS: A total of 13,066 arthroplasties from AOANJRR and 2882 arthroplasties from DSR were included. The hazard ratio for revision of stemmed TSA with stemless TSA as reference, adjusted for age and gender, was 1.67 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.34-2.09, P < .001) in AOANJRR and 0.57 (95% CI 0.36-0.89, P = .014) in DSR. When including glenoid type and fixation, surface bearing (only in AOANJRR), and hospital volume in the cox regression model, the hazard ratio for revision of stemmed TSA compared to stemless TSA was 1.22 (95% CI 0.85-1.75, P = .286) in AOANJRR and 1.50 (95% CI 0.91-2.45, P = .109) in DSR. The adjusted hazard ratio for revision of total shoulder arthroplasties with metal-backed glenoid components compared to all-polyethylene glenoid components was 2.54 (95% CI 1.70-3.79, P < .001) in AOANJRR and 4.1 (95% CI 1.92-8.58, P < .001) in DSR. CONCLUSION: Based on data from 2 national shoulder arthroplasty registries, we found no significant difference in risk of revision between stemmed and stemless total shoulder arthroplasties after adjusting for the type of glenoid component. We advocate that metal-backed glenoid components should be used with caution and not on a routine basis.

Utilizing Stems in Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty: Analysis of the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry Data.

BACKGROUND: We compared revision rates and reasons for revision for primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) performed for osteoarthritis with and without tibial stem extensions. METHODS: Data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry were used to compare all-cause revision, reason, and type of revision between primary TKA using stemmed tibial prostheses and non-stemmed prostheses. RESULTS: All-cause revision for TKA with stem extension was higher for the first 6 months (hazard ratio [HR] 1.47; 95% confidence interval [CI]1.19 to 1.82; P < .001); while after 1.5 years TKA with stem extension had a lower rate of revision (HR 0.84; 95% CI 0.73 to 0.97; P = .01). Stemmed components were more likely to be revised for infection between 3 months and 1.5 years after surgery (HR 1.39; 95% CI 1.05 to 1.83; P = .02). The revision rate for aseptic loosening was lower in the stemmed group beyond 2 years (HR = 0.45; 95% CI 0.31 to 0.63; P < .001). Insert-only revision was higher in the stemmed group at all times (HR = 1.42; 95% CI 1.21 to 1.66, P < .001). Isolated tibial component revision was lower in the stemmed group at all times (HR 0.47; 95% CI 0.29 to 0.74; P = .001). Aseptic loosening for tibial component-only revision was significantly lower in the stemmed group at all times (HR 0.23; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.50; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing primary stemmed TKA have lower rates of all-cause revision beyond 1.5 years and tibial component-only revision at all times. Further investigation is required to preoperatively select patients that benefit from augmentation with stems.

First knee for pain and function versus second knee for quality of life.

Aims: The aim of this study was to describe and compare joint-specific and generic health-related quality of life outcomes of the first versus second knee in patients undergoing staged bilateral total knee arthroplasty (BTKA) for osteoarthritis. Methods: This retrospective cohort study used Australian national arthroplasty registry data from January 2013 to January 2021 to identify participants who underwent elective staged BTKA with six to 24 months between procedures. The primary outcome was Oxford Knee Score (OKS) at six months postoperatively for the first TKA compared to the second TKA, adjusted for age and sex. Secondary outcomes compared six-month EuroQol five-dimension five-level (EQ-5D-5L) domain scores, EQ-5D index scores, and the EQ visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS) between knees at six months postoperatively. Results: The cohort included 635 participants (1,270 primary procedures). Preoperative scores were worse in the first knee compared to the second for all instruments; however, comparing the first knee at six months postoperatively with the second knee at six months postoperatively, the mean between-knee difference was minimal for OKS (-0.8 points; 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.4 to -0.2), EQ-VAS (3.3; 95% CI 1.9 to 4.7), and EQ-5D index (0.09 points; 95% CI 0.07 to 0.12). Outcomes for the EQ-5D-5L domains 'mobility', 'usual activities', and 'pain/discomfort' were better following the second TKA. Conclusion: At six months postoperatively, there were no clinically meaningful differences between the first and second TKA in either the joint-specific or overall generic health-related quality of life outcomes. However, individual domain scores assessing mobility, pain, and usual activities were notably higher after the second TKA, likely reflecting the cumulative improvement in quality of life after both knees have been replaced.

Periprosthetic Joint Infection After Total Knee Arthroplasty With or Without Antibiotic Bone Cement.

Importance: Despite increased use of antibiotic-loaded bone cement (ALBC) in joint arthroplasty over recent decades, current evidence for prophylactic use of ALBC to reduce risk of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is insufficient. Objective: To compare the rate of revision attributed to PJI following primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) using ALBC vs plain bone cement. Design, Setting, and Participants: This international cohort study used data from 14 national or regional joint arthroplasty registries in Australia, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy, New Zealand, Norway, Romania, Sweden, Switzerland, the Netherlands, the UK, and the US. The study included primary TKAs for osteoarthritis registered from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2020, and followed-up until December 31, 2021. Data analysis was performed from April to September 2023. Exposure: Primary TKA with ALBC vs plain bone cement. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was risk of 1-year revision for PJI. Using a distributed data network analysis method, data were harmonized, and a cumulative revision rate was calculated (1 - Kaplan-Meier), and Cox regression analyses were performed within the 10 registries using both cement types. A meta-analysis was then performed to combine all aggregated data and evaluate the risk of 1-year revision for PJI and all causes. Results: Among 2 168 924 TKAs included, 93% were performed with ALBC. Most TKAs were performed in female patients (59.5%) and patients aged 65 to 74 years (39.9%), fully cemented (92.2%), and in the 2015 to 2020 period (62.5%). All participating registries reported a cumulative 1-year revision rate for PJI of less than 1% following primary TKA with ALBC (range, 0.21%-0.80%) and with plain bone cement (range, 0.23%-0.70%). The meta-analyses based on adjusted Cox regression for 1 917 190 TKAs showed no statistically significant difference at 1 year in risk of revision for PJI (hazard rate ratio, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.89-1.52) or for all causes (hazard rate ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.89-1.40) among TKAs performed with ALBC vs plain bone cement. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, the risk of revision for PJI was similar between ALBC and plain bone cement following primary TKA. Any additional costs of ALBC and its relative value in reducing revision risk should be considered in the context of the overall health care delivery system.