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.

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.

Thromboprophylaxis in primary shoulder arthroplasty does not seem to prevent death: a report from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register 2005-2018.

Background and purpose - There is still no consensus on whether to use thromboprophylaxis as a standard treatment in shoulder replacement surgery. We investigated the use of thromboprophylaxis reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register (NAR). The primary endpoint was early mortality after primary shoulder arthroplasty with and without thromboprophylaxis. Secondary endpoints included revisions within 1 year and intraoperative complications.Patients and methods - This observational study included 6,123 primary shoulder arthroplasties in 5,624 patients reported to the NAR from 2005 to 2018. Cox regression analyses including robust variance analysis were performed with adjustments for age, sex, ASA score, diagnosis, type of implant, fixation, duration of surgery, and year of primary surgery. An instrumental variable Cox regression was performed to estimate the causal effect of thromboprophylaxis.Results - Thromboprophylaxis was used in 4,089 out of 6,123 shoulder arthroplasties. 90-day mortality was similar between the thromboprophylaxis and no thromboprophylaxis groups (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.1, 95% CI 0.6-2.4). High age (> 75), high ASA class (≥ 3), and fracture diagnosis increased postoperative mortality. No statistically significant difference in the risk of revision within 1 year could be found (HR = 0.6, CI 0.3-1.2). The proportion of intraoperative bleeding was similar in the 2 groups (0.2%, 0.3%).Interpretation - We had no information on cause of death and relation to thromboembolic events. However, no association of reduced mortality with use of thromboprophylaxis was found. Based on our findings routine use of thromboprophylaxis in shoulder arthroplasty can be questioned.

Increased risk of revision with hamstring tendon grafts compared with patellar tendon grafts after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a study of 12,643 patients from the Norwegian Cruciate Ligament Registry, 2004-2012.

BACKGROUND: The graft choice for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is controversial. Hamstring tendon (HT) autografts and patellar tendon (PT) autografts are the most common grafts used and have shown similar subjective and objective outcomes. PURPOSE: To compare the revision rate between HT and PT autografts used in ACLR in Norway and to estimate the influence of patient age and sex. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. METHODS: The study included all patients who underwent primary ACLR without concomitant ligament injuries registered in the Norwegian Knee Ligament Registry from 2004 through 2012. The cohort was stratified by age group (15-19, 20-29, and ≥30 years) and autograft type (HT or PT). Revision rates at 1, 2, and 5 years were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier analysis, and hazard ratios (HRs) for revision were calculated using multivariate Cox regression models. RESULTS: With a mean follow-up of 4.0 years, 12,643 primary ACLRs were identified, with 3428 PT and 9215 HT grafts, among which 69 revisions with PT grafts and 362 revisions with HT grafts were performed. The overall 5-year revision rate was 4.2%. A higher revision rate was recorded for HT versus PT grafts at all follow-up times. When adjusted for sex, age, and type of graft, the HR for revision was 2.3 (95% CI, 1.8-3.0) for HT grafts compared with PT grafts. The HR for revision in the youngest age group was 4.0 (95% CI, 3.1-5.2) compared with the oldest age group. Sex had no effect on the revision rate. CONCLUSION: Patients with HT grafts had twice the risk of revision compared with patients with PT grafts. Younger age was the most important risk factor for revision, and no effect was seen for sex. Further studies should be conducted to identify the cause of the increased revision rate found for HT grafts.