The influence of mode of anaesthesia on perioperative outcomes in people with hip fracture: a prospective cohort study from the National Hip Fracture Database for England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

BACKGROUND: Delirium is common after hip fracture surgery, affecting up to 50% of patients. The incidence of delirium may be influenced by mode and conduct of anaesthesia. We examined the effect of spinal anaesthesia (with and without sedation) compared with general anaesthesia on early outcomes following hip fracture surgery, including delirium. METHODS: We used prospective data on 107,028 patients (2018 to 2019) from the National Hip Fracture Database, which records all hip fractures in patients aged 60 years and over in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Patients were grouped by anaesthesia: general (58,727; 55%), spinal without sedation (31,484; 29%), and spinal with sedation (16,817; 16%). Outcomes (4AT score on post-operative delirium screening; mobilisation day one post-operatively; length of hospital stay; discharge destination; 30-day mortality) were compared between anaesthetic groups using multivariable logistic and linear regression models. RESULTS: Compared with general anaesthesia, spinal anaesthesia without sedation (but not spinal with sedation) was associated with a significantly reduced risk of delirium (odds ratio (OR)=0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.92-0.98), increased likelihood of day one mobilisation (OR=1.06, CI=1.02-1.10) and return to original residence (OR=1.04, CI=1.00-1.07). Spinal without sedation (p<0.001) and spinal with sedation (p=0.001) were both associated with shorter hospital stays compared with general anaesthesia. No differences in mortality were observed between anaesthetic groups. CONCLUSIONS: Spinal and general anaesthesia achieve similar outcomes for patients with hip fracture. However, this equivalence appears to reflect improved perioperative outcomes (including a reduced risk of delirium, increased likelihood of mobilisation day one post-operatively, shorter length of hospital stay and improved likelihood of returning to previous residence on discharge) among the sub-set of patients who received spinal anaesthesia without sedation. The role and effect of sedation should be studied in future trials of hip fracture patients undergoing spinal anaesthesia.

Clinical effectiveness and safety of spinal anaesthesia compared with general anaesthesia in patients undergoing hip fracture surgery using a consensus-based core outcome set and patient-and public-informed outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of contemporary RCTs to determine the clinical effectiveness of spinal vs general anaesthesia (SA vs GA) in patients undergoing hip fracture surgery using a consensus-based core outcome set, and outcomes defined as important by patient and public involvement (PPI) initiatives. METHODS: RCTs comparing any of the core outcomes (mortality, time from injury to surgery, acute coronary syndrome, hypotension, acute kidney injury, delirium, pneumonia, orthogeriatric input, being out of bed at day 1 postoperatively, and pain) or PPI-defined outcomes (return to preoperative residence, quality of life, and mobility status) between SA and GA were identified from MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science (2000 to February 2022). Pooled relative risks (RRs) and mean differences (95% confidence intervals [CIs]) were estimated. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the risk of delirium comparing SA vs GA (RR=1.07; 95% CI, 0.90-1.29). Comparing SA vs GA, the RR for mortality was 0.56 (95% CI, 0.22-1.44) in-hospital, 1.07 (95% CI, 0.52-2.23) at 30 days, and 1.08 (95% CI, 0.55-2.12) at 90 days. Spinal anaesthesia reduced the risk of acute kidney injury compared with GA: RR=0.59 (95% CI, 0.39-0.89). There were no significant differences in the risk of other outcomes. Few studies reported PPI-defined outcomes, with most studies reporting on one to three core outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Except for acute kidney injury, there were no differences between SA and GA in hip fracture surgery when using a consensus-based core outcome set and patient and public involvement-defined outcomes. Most studies reported limited outcomes from the core outcome set, and few reported outcomes important to patients, which should be considered when designing future RCTs. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42021275206.

Trauma care in older people: charting a path from outlier to excellence.

Trauma in older people leads to substantial morbidity and mortality. The National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD) has driven improved practice with units compared to identify outliers. In 2013, our unit was an outlier for mortality post hip fracture (30-day mortality 12.2% vs. 8.3% nationally). This triggered external review. In 2019 the unit was highlighted as an exemplar in the UK. We describe the process that moved us from outlier to outstanding. After the initial review process, we made changes to our healthcare system, with regular reassessment of progress and care quality. Examples include a dedicated hip fracture unit, strong leadership (Nursing, Orthopaedic, Geriatrician, Anaesthetic), consultant-led in-depth monthly mortality reviews, changes to admission pathways and delirium prevention. Improvements were seen in all aspects of hip fracture care in 2019 compared with 2012. Thirty-day case-mixed adjusted mortality halved (12.2-6.1%), with substantial reductions in reoperations and pressure sores. Length of stay reduced by 5.9 days. In 2019 our unit's performance was significantly above the national average for all six indicators assessed by NHFD: prompt orthogeriatric review (97% vs. 91% national average), prompt surgery (85% vs. 68%); NICE compliant surgery (85% vs. 74%); prompt mobilisation (93% vs. 81%); not delirious postoperatively (77% vs. 69%); return to original residence (78% vs. 71%). The NHFD highlighted our Unit as one of nine (from 175 total) highly performing UK trusts. We summarise our service development and improvement work undertaken to achieve 'outstanding' status, which provides a valuable template to units managing trauma in older people.

Clinical effectiveness of patellar resurfacing, no resurfacing and selective resurfacing in primary total knee replacement: systematic review and meta-analysis of interventional and observational evidence.

BACKGROUND: Patellar resurfacing is optional during total knee replacement (TKR). Some surgeons always resurface the patella, some never resurface, and others selectively resurface. Which resurfacing strategy provides optimal outcomes is unclear. We assessed the effectiveness of patellar resurfacing, no resurfacing, and selective resurfacing in primary TKR. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, and bibliographies were searched to November 2021 for randomised-control trials (RCTs) comparing outcomes for two or more resurfacing strategies (resurfacing, no resurfacing, or selective resurfacing) in primary TKR. Observational studies were included if limited or no RCTs existed for resurfacing comparisons. Outcomes assessed were patient reported outcome measures (PROMs), complications, and further surgery. Study-specific relative risks [RR] were aggregated using random-effects models. Quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE. RESULTS: We identified 33 RCTs involving 5,540 TKRs (2,727 = resurfacing, 2,772 = no resurfacing, 41 = selective resurfacing). One trial reported on selective resurfacing. Patellar resurfacing reduced anterior knee pain compared with no resurfacing (RR = 0.65 (95% CI = 0.44-0.96)); there were no significant differences in PROMs. Resurfacing reduced the risk of revision surgery (RR = 0.63, CI = 0.42-0.94) and other complications (RR = 0.54, CI = 0.39-0.74) compared with no resurfacing. Quality of evidence ranged from high to very low. Limited observational evidence (5 studies, TKRs = 215,419) suggested selective resurfacing increased the revision risk (RR = 1.14, CI = 1.05-1.22) compared with resurfacing. Compared with no resurfacing, selective resurfacing had a higher risk of pain (RR = 1.25, CI = 1.04-1.50) and lower risk of revision (RR = 0.92, CI = 0.85-0.99). CONCLUSIONS: Level 1 evidence supports TKR with patellar resurfacing over no resurfacing. Resurfacing has a reduced risk of anterior knee pain, revision surgery, and complications, despite PROMs being comparable. High-quality RCTs involving selective resurfacing, the most common strategy in the UK and other countries, are needed given the limited observational data suggests selective resurfacing may not be effective over other strategies.

Hand Carpometacarpal Joint Instability in Elite Boxers: Injury Characteristics, Surgical Technique, and Outcomes.

PURPOSE: We describe a single-surgeon's experience of managing hand carpometacarpal joint (CMCJ) instability in elite boxers, focusing on injury characteristics, surgical technique, and outcomes. METHODS: This retrospective cohort included consecutive elite boxers undergoing surgery for hand CMCJ instability from 2009 to 2021. CMC joint instability is usually clear on clinical examination using a 'seesaw' test. All cases had a plain radiograph and in equivocal cases for instability advanced imaging such as MRI or ultrasound scan. CMCJs were accessed via longitudinal incisions between index/middle rays, and additionally ring/little. Often marked deficiency in the CMCJ ligamentous capsule was seen. The articular surfaces were decorticated to cancellous bone and autogenous bone graft impacted. The CMCJs were fixed in extension using various methods, latterly memory staples. Outcomes included radiographic fusion, return to boxing, and complications. RESULTS: Forty hands had surgery in 38 boxers. In total, 101 CMCJs were fused, with an average of 2.5 joints per patient. Patients were mainly young (mean age 24.1 years), male (37/38) with the trailing hand more commonly affected (trailing hand 87.5%, leading hand 12.5%). The most frequently fused CMCJ was the index (97.5%, n = 39), then middle (95%, n = 38), ring (45%, n = 18), and little (15%, n = 6). There were 82% (31/38) of patients who returned to the same level of boxing at a median of 8 months from surgery (range 3-27 months). Three patients had revision surgery for non-union, a median of 10.3 months after initial surgery (range 9.4-133.1 months): 2 for index/middle and one for the little CMCJ. All 3 revisions fused and the patients returned to boxing at the same level, although the little CMCJ required a second bone graft and fixation. CONCLUSIONS: Patients can achieve full recovery after treatment of CMCJ instability, and most can return to boxing at the same level with little risk of complications. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic IV.

Predictive Factors for Revision and Survivorship Analysis of a Prevalent 36-mm Metal-on-Metal Total Hip Replacement System: A Large Single-Center Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: To our knowledge, this is the largest single-center cohort of the 36-mm Corail-Pinnacle metal-on-metal total hip replacements system, aiming to determine 10-year survivorship and identify predictors of revision. We further assessed year of implantation given reports of manufacturing variations affecting shells made after 2006 predisposing these components to increasing wear. METHODS: All Corail-Pinnacle 36-mm metal-on-metal hips implanted in a single center (2005-2012). The effect of patient and implant-related variables, and year of implantation on revision risk was assessed using Kaplan-Meier, Cox regression, and interrupted time series analysis. RESULTS: In total, 1212 metal-on-metal total hip replacements were implanted with a 10-year survival rate of 83.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 81.3-85.5). Mean follow-up duration was 7.3 years with 61% of patients reaching a minimum of 7 years of follow-up. One hundred nineteen patients required revision surgery (9.8%). Univariate analysis identified female gender (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.608, CI = 1.093-2.364, P = .016), age at implantation (HR = 0.982, CI = 0.968-0.997, P = .019), smaller 50-mm to 54-mm cup diameter (HR = 1.527, CI = 1.026-2.274, P = .037), and high-offset stems (HR = 2.573, CI = 1.619-4.089, P < .001) as predictors of revision. Multivariate modeling confirmed female gender and high-offset stems as significant predictors of revision. For components implanted after 2007, the number of revisions showed no statistically significant step increase compared to pre-2007 implantation. CONCLUSION: We observed a high 10-year failure rate (16.6%) with this implant, mostly due to adverse reaction to metal debris. Female gender and high femoral offset stems were significant predictors for all-cause revision. Year of implantation was not significantly associated with an increasing number of revisions from 2007 onwards, although further studies to validate the impact of manufacturing discrepancies are recommended.

The Mid- to Long-Term Outcomes of the Lateral Domed Oxford Unicompartmental Knee Replacement: An Analysis From the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the Isle of Man.

BACKGROUND: Lateral unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) is an alternative to total knee replacement for isolated lateral unicompartmental knee arthritis. The geometry and mechanics of the lateral compartment differ to the medial compartment with the Lateral Domed Oxford UKR designed to address this. We used the National Joint Registry (NJR) data to report the mid- to long-term outcomes of this device. METHODS: We performed a retrospective observational study using NJR data on 992 Lateral Domed Oxford UKRs implanted between 1st January 2005 and 31st December 2017. Outcomes of interest were implant survival and revision indications. RESULTS: The 10 year cumulative implant survival rates were 88.6% (CI 85.3-91.2). When compared with <55 year age group, the 55-64, 65-74 and ≥75 groups had significantly lower revision rates (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.56 (CI 0.32-0.98, P = .04), HR 0.40 (CI 0.22-0.72, P = .003), and HR 0.27 (CI 0.12-0.58, P = .001), respectively). The obese group had significantly (P = .04) increased revision risk compared with normal BMI (HR 2.33, CI 1.06-5.12). The commonest reasons for revision surgery were dislocation (n = 23, 2.3%), pain (n = 15, 1.5%), and aseptic loosening (n = 14, 1.4%). CONCLUSION: The Lateral Domed Oxford UKR provides a good option for isolated lateral compartment osteoarthritis. However, dislocation of the mobile bearing remains a problem, occurring in 2.3% of the patients and accounting for 30% of the revisions. To help prevent dislocation, it is now possible to assess bearing stability intraoperatively and if very unstable to implant a compatible fixed bearing tibial component, without the need for further bone preparation.

Patients Receiving a Primary Unicompartmental Knee Replacement Have a Higher Risk of Revision but a Lower Risk of Mortality Than Predicted Had They Received a Total Knee Replacement: Data From the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the Isle of Man.

BACKGROUND: To determine unicompartmental (UKR) and total knee replacement (TKR) revision rates, compare UKR revision rates with what they would have been had they received TKR instead, and assess subsequent re-revision and 90-day mortality rates. METHODS: Using National Joint Registry data, we estimated UKR and TKR revision and mortality rates. Flexible parametric survival modeling (FPM) was used to model failure in TKR and make estimates for UKR. Kaplan-Meier estimates were used to compare cumulative re-revision for revised UKRs and TKRs. RESULTS: Ten-year UKR revision rates were 2.5 times higher than expected from TKR, equivalent to 70 excess revisions/1000 cases within 10 years (5861 excess revisions in this cohort). Revision rates were 2.5 times higher for the highest quartile volume UKR surgeons compared to the same quartile for TKR and 3.9 times higher for the lowest quartiles respectively. Re-revision rates of revised TKRs (10 years = 17.5%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 16.4-18.7) were similar to revised UKRs (15.2%, 95% CI 13.4-17.1) and higher than revision rates following primary TKR (3.3%, 95% CI 3.1-3.5). Ninety-day mortality rates were lower after UKR compared with TKR (0.08% vs 0.33%) and lower than predicted had UKR patients received a TKR (0.18%), equivalent to 1 fewer death per 1000 cases. CONCLUSION: UKR revision rates were substantially higher than TKR even when demographics and caseload differences were accounted for; however, fewer deaths occur after UKR. This should be considered when forming treatment guidelines and commissioning services. Re-revision rates were similar between revised UKRs and TKRs, but considerably higher than for primary TKR, therefore UKR cannot be considered an intermediate procedure.

The effect of surgical approach in total hip replacement on outcomes: an analysis of 723,904 elective operations from the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man.

BACKGROUND: Total hip replacement (THR) is clinically and cost-effective. The surgical approach employed influences the outcome; however, there is little generalisable and robust evidence to guide practice. METHODS: A total of 723,904 primary THRs captured in the National Joint Registry, linked to hospital inpatient, mortality and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) data with up to 13.75 years follow-up, were analysed. There were seven surgical approach groups: conventional posterior, lateral, anterior and trans-trochanteric groups and minimally invasive posterior, lateral and anterior. Survival methods were used to compare revision rates and 90-day mortality. Groups were compared using Cox proportional hazards and Flexible Parametric Survival Modelling (FPM). Confounders included age at surgery, sex, risk group (indications additional to osteoarthritis), American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, THR fixation, thromboprophylaxis, anaesthetic, body mass index (BMI) and deprivation. PROMs were analysed with regression modelling or non-parametric methods. RESULTS: Unadjusted analysis showed a higher revision risk than the referent conventional posterior for the conventional lateral, minimally invasive lateral, minimally invasive anterior and trans-trochanteric groups. This persisted with all adjusted FPM and adjusted Cox models, except in the Cox model including BMI where the higher revision rate only persisted for the conventional lateral approach (hazard rate ratio (HRR) 1.12 [95% CI 1.06,1.17] P < 0·001) and trans-trochanteric approaches (HRR 1.48 [95% CI 1.14,1.91] P = 0.003). PROMs demonstrated statistically, but not clinically, significant differences. Self-reported complications were more frequent with the conventional lateral approach, and the risk of 90-day mortality was higher (HRR 1.15 [95%CI 1.01-1.30] P = 0.029). CONCLUSIONS: Lateral approaches for THR are associated with worse outcomes, including more deaths and revisions, than the posterior approach. We recommend the posterior approach should be considered the current standard approach for THR. Large well-designed studies are needed to assess any potential benefits from using minimally invasive posterior approaches and the conventional anterior approach.

Can We Use Routinely Collected Healthcare Data for a Nationwide Trial on Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis Following Primary Joint Replacement? A Feasibility Study.

BACKGROUND: UK hospitals nationally report venous thromboembolism (VTE) within 90 days of hospital admission, with hospital-acquired thrombosis (HAT) registers at each center used for this. We assessed the accuracy of our HAT register in identifying VTE following primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA). METHODS: We assessed 982 elective admissions for primary THA and TKA at a large tertiary center during 2018. The primary outcome was any VTE (deep vein thrombosis and/or pulmonary embolism) within 90 days postsurgery. VTEs were identified by systematically searching hospital databases (including discharge and outpatient letters, readmissions, emergency department visits, and imaging) for every patient. VTEs were also collected using the HAT database at our center, which is maintained regularly by a specialist nursing team and used to report VTEs nationally. Diagnostic test characteristics were assessed for HAT in identifying VTEs compared to the gold standard (ie, VTEs from the hospital databases). RESULTS: The prevalence of VTE was 2.7% (n = 27), with 20 VTEs identified by HAT. The accuracy of HAT in identifying VTEs were as follows: sensitivity = 74.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 53.7-88.9), specificity = 100% (CI = 99.6-100), positive predictive value = 100% (CI = 83.2-100), and negative predictive value = 99.3% (CI = 98.5-99.7). CONCLUSION: One-quarter of VTEs occurring after THA and TKA were not identified by the HAT register. These cases would be missing when our hospital's data are sent for national VTE reporting, and therefore would have substantial implications if HAT was primarily used to identify VTEs in a trial. Further work is needed to improve the accuracy of HAT VTE reporting before this could be relied upon in this setting.

Is Aspirin as Effective as the Newer Direct Oral Anticoagulants for Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis After Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty? An Analysis From the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the Isle of Man.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have compared aspirin with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) (DOACs = direct thrombin inhibitors and factor Xa inhibitors) for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis after total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA). We assessed the efficacy and safety of aspirin compared with DOACs for VTE prophylaxis after THA and TKA using the world's largest joint arthroplasty registry. METHODS: We studied the National Joint Registry linked to English hospital inpatient episodes for 218,650 THA and TKA patients. Patients receiving aspirin were matched separately to patients receiving direct thrombin inhibitors and factor Xa inhibitors using propensity scores. Outcomes assessed at 90 days included VTE, length of stay, and adverse events. RESULTS: After THA, there was a significantly lower risk of VTE associated with the use of direct thrombin inhibitors (0.44%; odds ratio [OR], 0.69; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.55-0.87; P = .002) and factor Xa inhibitors (0.37%; OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.47-0.85; P = .003) compared with aspirin (0.63%). After THA, direct thrombin inhibitors (coefficient, -0.37 days; 95% CI, -0.43 to -0.31; P < .001) and factor Xa inhibitors (coefficient, -0.80 days; 95% CI, -0.87 to -0.74; P < .001) were associated with a reduced length of stay compared with aspirin. Similar findings for both outcomes were observed after TKA. Compared with aspirin, DOACs were not associated with an increase in the risk of short-term revision surgery, reoperation, major hemorrhage, wound disruption, surgical site infection, and mortality. CONCLUSION: After THA and TKA, DOACs were associated with a reduced risk of VTE compared with aspirin. DOACs were associated with a reduced length of stay, and DOACs were not associated with an increase in the risk of further surgery, wound problems, bleeding complications, or mortality compared with aspirin.

Does Regional Anesthesia Reduce Complications Following Total Hip and Knee Replacement Compared With General Anesthesia? An Analysis From the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man.

BACKGROUND: Regional anesthesia is increasingly used in enhanced recovery programs following total hip replacement (THR) and total knee replacement (TKR). However, debate remains about its potential benefit over general anesthesia given that complications following surgery are rare. We assessed the risk of complications in THR and TKR patients receiving regional anesthesia compared with general anesthesia using the world's largest joint replacement registry. METHODS: We studied the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man linked to English hospital inpatient episodes for 779,491 patients undergoing THR and TKR. Patients received either regional anesthesia (n = 544,620, 70%) or general anesthesia (n = 234,871, 30%). Outcomes assessed at 90 days included length of stay, readmissions, and complications. Regression models were adjusted for patient and surgical factors to determine the effect of anesthesia on outcomes. RESULTS: Length of stay was reduced with regional anesthesia compared with general anesthesia (THR = -0.49 days, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.51 to -0.47 days, P < .001; TKR = -0.47 days, CI = -0.49 to -0.45 days, P < .001). Regional anesthesia also had a reduced risk of readmission (THR odds ratio [OR] = 0.93, CI = 0.90-0.96; TKA OR = 0.91, CI = 0.89-0.93), any complication (THR OR = 0.88, CI = 0.85-0.91; TKA OR = 0.90, CI = 0.87-0.93), urinary tract infection (THR OR = 0.85, CI = 0.77-0.94; TKR OR = 0.87, CI = 0.79-0.96), and surgical site infection (THR OR = 0.87, CI = 0.80-0.95; TKR OR = 0.84, CI = 0.78-0.89). Anesthesia type did not affect the risk of revision surgery or mortality. CONCLUSION: Regional anesthesia was associated with reduced length of stay, readmissions, and complications following THR and TKR when compared with general anesthesia. We recommend regional anesthesia should be considered the reference standard for patients undergoing THR and TKR.

Comparison of the 10-year outcomes of cemented and cementless unicompartmental knee replacements: data from the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man.

Background and purpose - Unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) offers advantages over total replacement but has higher revision rates, particularly for aseptic loosening. The cementless Oxford UKR was introduced to address this. We undertook a registry-based matched comparison of cementless and cemented UKRs.Patients and methods - From 40,552 Oxford UKRs identified by the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Isle of Man (NJR) we propensity score matched, based on patient, surgical, and implant factors, 7,407 cemented and 7,407 cementless UKRs (total = 14,814).Results - The 10-year cumulative implant survival rates for cementless and cemented UKRs was 93% (95% CI 90-96) and 90% (CI 88-92) respectively, with this difference being significant (HR 0.76; p = 0.002). The risk of revision for aseptic loosening was less than half (p < 0.001) in the cementless (0.42%) compared with the cemented group (1.00%), and the risk of revision also decreased for unexplained pain (to 0.46% from 0.74%; p = 0.03) and lysis (to 0.04% from 0.15%; p = 0.03). However, the risk of revision for periprosthetic fracture increased significantly (p = 0.01) in the cementless (0.26%) compared with the cemented group (0.09%). 10-year patient survival rates were similar (HR 1.2; p = 0.1).Interpretation - The cementless UKR has improved 10-year implant survival compared with the cemented UKR, independent of patient, implant, and surgical factors. This improved survival in the cementless group was primarily the result of lower revision rate for aseptic loosening, unexplained pain, and lysis, suggesting the fixation of the cementless was superior. However, there was a small increased risk of revision for periprosthetic fracture with the cementless implant.

A matched comparison of revision rates of cemented Oxford Unicompartmental Knee Replacements with Single and Twin Peg femoral components, based on data from the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man.

Background and purpose - Registries report high revision rates after unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) due, in part, to aseptic loosing. In an attempt to improve Oxford UKR femoral component fixation a new design was introduced with a Twin rather than a Single peg. We used the National Joint Registry (NJR) to compare the 5-year outcomes of the Single and Twin Peg cemented Oxford UKRs.Patients and methods - We performed a retrospective observational study using NJR data on propensity score matched Single and Twin Peg UKRs (matched for patient, implant and surgical factors). Data on 2,834 Single Peg and 2,834 Twin Peg were analyzed. Cumulative implant survival was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and comparisons between groups performed using Cox regression models.Results - In the matched cohort, the mean follow up for both Single and Twin Peg UKRs was 3.3 (SD 2) and 3.4 years (SD 2) respectively. The 5-year cumulative implant survival rates for Single Peg and Twin Peg were 94.8% (95% CI 93.6-95.8) and 96.2% (CI 95.1-97.1) respectively. Implant revision rates were statistically significantly lower in the Twin Peg (hazard ratio [HR)] = 0.74; p = 0.04). The revision rate for femoral component aseptic loosening decreased significantly (p = 0.03) from 0.4% (n = 11) with the Single Peg to 0.1% (n = 3) with the Twin Peg. The revision rate for pain decreased significantly (p = 0.01) from 0.8% (n = 23) with the Single Peg to 0.3% (n = 9) with the Twin Peg. No other reasons for revision had significant differences in revision rates.Interpretation - The revision rate for the cemented Twin Peg Oxford UKR was 26% less than the Single Peg Oxford UKR. This was mainly because the revision rates for femoral loosening and pain more than halved. This suggests that the Twin Peg component should be used in preference to the Single Peg design.

Do Trabecular Metal Acetabular Components Reduce the Risk of Rerevision After Revision THA Performed for Periprosthetic Joint Infection? A Study Using the NJR Data Set.

BACKGROUND: A single-center study of 144 THAs revised specifically for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) observed that trabecular metal (TM) acetabular components had a reduced risk of rerevision for subsequent infection compared with non-TM implants. It was suggested that TM was protective against infection after revision and that TM may be useful when revising THAs for PJI. Three registry studies have subsequently assessed the effect of TM on future infection. In the National Joint Registry (NJR) for England and Wales, we earlier reported lower revision rates for infection when TM (versus non-TM) was used in primary THA, but no difference in rerevision rates for infection when TM was used for all-cause revision THAs. The latter findings in all-cause revisions were also confirmed in a study from the Swedish and Australian registries. It is possible that TM only reduces the risk of infection when it is specifically used for PJI revisions (rather than all-causes). However, to date, the registry analyses have not had large enough cohorts of such cases to assess this meaningfully. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) In revision THAs performed for PJI, are rerevision rates for all-cause acetabular indications lower with TM acetabular components compared with non-TM designs? (2) In revision THAs performed for PJI, are rerevision rates of any component for infection lower with TM acetabular components compared with non-TM designs? METHODS: A retrospective observational study was performed using NJR data from England and Wales, which is the world's largest arthroplasty registry and contains details of over two million joint replacement procedures. The registry achieves high levels of patient consent (92%) and linked procedures (ability to link serial procedures performed on the same patient and hip; 94%). Furthermore, recent validation studies have demonstrated that when revision procedures have been captured within the NJR, the data completion and accuracy were excellent. Of 11,988 revisions performed for all causes, 794 were performed for PJI in which the same cementless acetabular component produced by one manufacturer was used. Acetabular components were either TM (n = 541) or non-TM (n = 253). At baseline the two groups were comparable for sex, age, body mass index, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade. Outcomes after revision THA (rerevision for all-cause acetabular indications and rerevision of any component for infection) were compared between the groups using Fine and Gray regression analysis, which considers the competing mortality risk. Regression models were adjusted for the propensity score, with this score summarizing many of the potential patient and surgical confounding factors (age, sex, ASA grade, surgeon grade, approach, and type of revision procedure performed). RESULTS: There was no difference in 5-year cumulative acetabular component survival rates between TM (96.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 94%-98%) and non-TM components (94.4%, 95% CI, 90%-97%; subhazard ratio, 0.78, 95% CI, 0.37-1.65; p = 0.509). There was no difference in 5-year cumulative implant survival rates free from infection between TM (94.8%; 95% CI, 92%-97%) and non-TM components (94.4%, 95% CI, 90%-97%; subhazard ratio, 0.97, 95% CI, 0.48-1.96; p = 0.942). CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence to support the notion that TM acetabular components used for PJI revisions reduced the subsequent risk of all-cause rerevision or the risk of rerevision for infection compared with non-TM implants from the same manufacturer. We therefore advise caution against recent claims that TM components may protect against infection. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

No Threshold Exists for Recommending Revision Surgery in Metal-on-Metal Hip Arthroplasty Patients With Adverse Reactions to Metal Debris: A Retrospective Cohort Study of 346 Revisions.

BACKGROUND: Surgeons currently have difficulty when managing metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty (MoMHA) patients with adverse reactions to metal debris (ARMD). This stems from a lack of evidence, which is emphasized by the variability in the recommendations proposed by different worldwide regulatory authorities for considering MoMHA revision surgery. We investigated predictors of poor outcomes following MoMHA revision surgery performed for ARMD to help inform the revision threshold and type of reconstruction. METHODS: We retrospectively studied 346 MoMHA revisions for ARMD performed at 2 European centers. Preoperative (metal ions/imaging) and intraoperative (findings, components removed/implanted) factors were used to predict poor outcomes. Poor outcomes were postoperative complications (including re-revision), 90-day mortality, and poor Oxford Hip Score. RESULTS: Poor outcomes occurred in 38.5%. Shorter time (under 4 years) to revision surgery was the only preoperative predictor of poor outcomes (odds ratio [OR] = 2.12, confidence interval [CI] = 1.00-4.46). Prerevision metal ions and imaging did not influence outcomes. Single-component revisions (vs all-component revisions) increased the risk of poor outcomes (OR = 2.99, CI = 1.50-5.97). Intraoperative modifiable factors reducing the risk of poor outcomes included the posterior approach (OR = 0.22, CI = 0.10-0.49), revision head sizes ≥36 mm (vs <36 mm: OR = 0.37, CI = 0.18-0.77), ceramic-on-polyethylene revision bearings (OR vs ceramic-on-ceramic = 0.30, CI = 0.14-0.66), and metal-on-polyethylene revision bearings (OR vs ceramic-on-ceramic = 0.37, CI = 0.17-0.83). CONCLUSION: No threshold exists for recommending revision in MoMHA patients with ARMD. However postrevision outcomes were surgeon modifiable. Optimal outcomes may be achieved if surgeons use the posterior approach, revise all MoMHA components, and use ≥36 mm ceramic-on-polyethylene or metal-on-polyethylene articulations.

Risk Factors for Intraoperative Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures During Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty. An Analysis From the National Joint Registry for England and Wales and the Isle of Man.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to estimate risk factors for intraoperative periprosthetic femoral fractures (IOPFF) and each anatomic subtype (calcar crack, trochanteric fracture, femoral shaft fracture) during primary total hip arthroplasty. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included 793,823 primary total hip arthroplasties between 2004 and 2016. Multivariable regression modeling was used to estimate relative risk of patient, surgical, and implant factors for any IOPFF and for all anatomic subtypes of IOPFF. Clinically important interactions were assessed using multivariable regression. RESULTS: Patient factors significantly increasing the risk of fracture were female gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade 3 to 5, and preoperative diagnosis including avascular necrosis of the hip, previous trauma, inflammatory disease, pediatric disease, and previous infection. Overall risk of IOPFF associated with age was greatest in patients below 50 years and above 80 years. Risk of any fracture reduced with computer-guided surgery and in non-National Health Service hospitals. Nonposterior approaches increased the risk of shaft and trochanteric fracture only. Cementless implants significantly increased the risk of only calcar cracks and shaft fractures and not trochanteric fractures. CONCLUSION: Fracture risk increases in patients younger than 50 and older than 80 years, females, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade 3 to 5, and indications other than primary osteoarthritis. Large cumulative reduction in IOPFF risk may occur with use of cemented implants, posterior approach, and computer-guided surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3b (cohort study).

The effect of smoking on outcomes following primary total hip and knee arthroplasty: a population-based cohort study of 117,024 patients.

Background and purpose - Smoking is a modifiable risk factor that may adversely affect postoperative outcomes. Healthcare providers are increasingly denying smokers access to total hip and knee arthroplasty (THA and TKA) until they stop smoking. Evidence supporting this is unclear. We assessed the effect of smoking on outcomes following arthroplasty.Patients and methods - We identified THAs and TKAs from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, which were linked with datasets from Hospital Episode Statistics and the Office for National Statistics to identify outcomes. The effect of smoking on postoperative outcomes (complications, medications, revision, mortality, patient-reported outcome measures [PROMs]) was assessed using adjusted regression models.Results - We studied 60,812 THAs and 56,212 TKAs (11% smokers, 33% ex-smokers, 57% non-smokers). Following THA, smokers had an increased risk of lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) and myocardial infarction compared with non-smokers and ex-smokers. Following TKA, smokers had an increased risk of LRTI compared with non-smokers. Compared with non-smokers (THA relative risk ratio [RRR] = 0.65; 95% CI = 0.61-0.69; TKA RRR = 0.82; CI = 0.78-0.86) and ex-smokers (THR RRR = 0.90; CI = 0.84-0.95), smokers had increased opioid usage 1-year postoperatively. Similar patterns were observed for weak opioids, paracetamol, and gabapentinoids. 1-year mortality rates were higher in smokers compared with non-smokers (THA hazard ratio [HR] = 0.37, CI = 0.29-0.49; TKA HR = 0.52, CI = 0.34-0.81) and ex-smokers (THA HR = 0.53, CI = 0.40-0.70). Long-term revision rates were not increased in smokers. Smokers had improvement in PROMs compared with preoperatively, with no clinically important difference in postoperative PROMs between smokers, non-smokers, and ex-smokers.Interpretation - Smoking is associated with more medical complications, higher analgesia usage, and increased mortality following arthroplasty. Most adverse outcomes were reduced in ex-smokers, therefore smoking cessation should be encouraged before arthroplasty.

Has the threshold for revision surgery for adverse reactions to metal debris changed in metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty patients? A cohort study of 239 patients using an adapted risk-stratification algorithm.

Background and purpose - A risk-stratification algorithm for metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty (MoMHA) patients was devised by US experts to help clinicians make management decisions. However, the proposed algorithm did not cover all potential patient or surgical abnormalities. Therefore we adapted the US risk-stratification algorithm in MoMHA patients revised for adverse reactions to metal debris (ARMD) to determine the variability in the revision threshold, and also whether high-risk patients had inferior outcomes following revision.Patients and methods - We analysed 239 MoMHA revisions for ARMD between 2001 and 2016 from 2 centres with pre-revision blood metal ions and imaging. Patients were stratified (low risk, moderate risk, high risk) using pre-revision factors (implant, radiographic, blood metal ions, cross-sectional imaging) by adapting a published algorithm. The risk categories for each factor were assessed against revision year, revision centre, and post-revision outcomes (re-revision surgery, and any poor outcome).Results - Compared with hips revised before 2012, hips revised from 2012 onwards included more high-risk implants (44% vs. 17% pre-2012), high-risk radiographic features (85% vs. 69% pre-2012), and low-risk metal ions (41% vs. 19% pre-2012). 1 centre more frequently revised patients with high-risk implants (48% vs. 14%) and low-risk blood metal ions (45% vs. 15%) compared with the other. All these comparisons were statistically significant (p < 0.05). With the limited sample size available, implant, radiographic, blood metal ion, and cross-sectional imaging risk groups did not statistically significantly affect the rates of re-revision surgery or frequency of poor outcomes post-revision.Interpretation - When applying the adapted risk-stratification algorithm the threshold for ARMD revision changed over time, presumably due to increasing evidence, patient surveillance, and investigation since 2012. Lower blood metal ion thresholds were used from 2012 for ARMD revisions; however, there was evidence that centres attached different importance to metal ions when managing patients. High-risk patients did not have inferior outcomes following ARMD revision.

Outcomes After Metal-on-metal Hip Revision Surgery Depend on the Reason for Failure: A Propensity Score-matched Study.

BACKGROUND: Metal-on-metal hip replacement (MoMHR) revision surgery for adverse reactions to metal debris (ARMD) has been associated with an increased risk of early complications and reoperation and inferior patient-reported outcome scores compared with non-ARMD revisions. As a result, early revision specifically for ARMD with adoption of a lower surgical threshold has been widely recommended with the goal of improving the subsequent prognosis after ARMD revisions. However, no large cohorts have compared the risk of complications and reoperation after MoMHR revision surgery for ARMD (an unanticipated revision indication) with those after non-ARMD revisions (which represent conventional modes of arthroplasty revision). QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Does the risk of intraoperative complications differ between MoMHRs revised for ARMD compared with non-ARMD indications? (2) Do mortality rates differ after MoMHRs revised for ARMD compared with non-ARMD indications? (3) Do rerevision rates differ after MoMHRs revised for ARMD compared with non-ARMD indications? (4) How do implant survival rates differ after MoMHR revision when performed for specific non-ARMD indications compared with ARMD? METHODS: This retrospective observational study involved all patients undergoing MoMHR from the National Joint Registry (NJR) for England and Wales subsequently revised for any indication between 2008 and 2014. The NJR achieves high levels of patient consent (93%) and linked procedures (ability to link serial procedures performed on the same patient and hip; 95%). Furthermore, recent validation studies have demonstrated that when revision procedures have been captured within the NJR, the data completion and accuracy were excellent. Revisions for ARMD and non-ARMD indications were matched one to one for multiple potential confounding factors using propensity scores. The propensity score summarizes the many patient and surgical factors that were used in the matching process (including sex, age, type of primary arthroplasty, time to revision surgery, and details about the revision procedure performed such as the approach, specific components revised, femoral head size, bearing surface, and use of bone graft) using one single score for each revised hip. The patient and surgical factors within the ARMD and non-ARMD groups subsequently became much more balanced once the groups had been matched based on the propensity scores. The matched cohort included 2576 MoMHR revisions with each study group including 1288 revisions (mean followup of 3 years for both groups; range, 1-7 years). Intraoperative complications, mortality, and rerevision surgery were compared between matched groups using univariable regression analyses. Implant survival rates in the non-ARMD group were calculated for each specific revision indication with each individual non-ARMD indication subsequently compared with the implant survival rate in the ARMD group using Cox regression analyses. RESULTS: There was no difference between the ARMD and non-ARMD MoMHR revisions in terms of intraoperative complications (odds ratio, 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59-1.59; p = 0.900). Mortality rates were lower after ARMD revision compared with non-ARMD revision (hazard ratio [HR], 0.43; CI, 0.21-0.87; p = 0.019); however, there was no difference when revisions performed for infection were excluded from the non-ARMD indication group (HR, 0.69; CI, 0.35-1.37; p = 0.287). Rerevision rates were lower after ARMD revision compared with non-ARMD revision (HR, 0.52; CI, 0.36-0.75; p < 0.001); this difference persisted even after removing revisions performed for infection (HR, 0.59; CI, 0.40-0.89; p = 0.011). Revisions for infection (5-year survivorship = 81%; CI, 55%-93%; p = 0.003) and dislocation/subluxation (5-year survivorship = 82%; CI, 69%-90%; p < 0.001) had the lowest implant survival rates when compared with revisions for ARMD (5-year survivorship = 94%; CI, 92%-96%). CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to previous observations, MoMHRs revised for ARMD have approximately half the risk of rerevision compared with non-ARMD revisions. We suspect worldwide regulatory authorities have positively influenced rerevision rates after ARMD revision by recommending that surgeons exercise a lower revision threshold and that such revisions are now being performed at an earlier stage. The high risk of rerevision after MoMHR revision for infection and dislocation is concerning. Infected MoMHR revisions were responsible for the increased mortality risk observed after non-ARMD revision, which parallels findings in non-MoMHR revisions for infection. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.