Are There Differences in Performance Among Femoral Stem Brands Utilized in Cementless Hemiarthroplasty for Treatment of Geriatric Femoral Neck Fractures?

BACKGROUND: For the vast majority of displaced femoral neck fractures in older patients, cemented femoral fixation is indicated because it is associated with a lower risk of periprosthetic fracture than cementless fixation. Nevertheless, cementless fixation continues to be utilized with high frequency for hip fractures in the United States. It is therefore helpful to understand the performance of individual cementless brands and models. Although prior studies have compared femoral stems by design type or stem geometry, there may still be a difference in revision risk according to femoral stem brand given the potential differences within design groupings with regard to manufacturing, implantation systems, and implant design nuances among vendors. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Is there a difference in aseptic revision risk among femoral stem brands in patients ≥ 60 years of age who have displaced femoral neck fractures treated with cementless hemiarthroplasty? (2) Is there a difference in revision for periprosthetic fracture among femoral stem brands in patients ≥ 60 years of age with displaced femoral neck fractures treated with cementless hemiarthroplasty? METHODS: A retrospective, comparative, large-database cohort study was conducted using data from Kaiser Permanente's Hip Fracture Registry. This integrated healthcare system covers more than 12 million members throughout eight regions in the United States; membership has been found to be representative of the general population in the areas served. The Hip Fracture Registry collects details on all patients who undergo hip fracture repair within the organization. These patients are then longitudinally monitored for outcomes after their repair, and all identified outcomes are manually validated through chart review. Patients ages ≥ 60 years who underwent unilateral hemiarthroplasty treatment of a displaced femoral neck fracture from 2009 to 2021 were identified (n = 22,248). Hemiarthroplasties for polytrauma, pathologic or open fractures, or patients who had additional surgeries at other body sites during the same stay, as well as those with prior procedures in the same hip, were excluded (21.4% [4768]). Cemented procedures and those with missing or inconsistent implant information (for example, cement used but cementless implant recorded) were further excluded (47.1% [10,485]). To allow for enough events for evaluation, the study sample was restricted to seven stems for which there were at least 300 hemiarthroplasties performed, including four models from DePuy Synthes (Corail®, Summit®, Summit Basic, and Tri-Lock®) and three from Zimmer Biomet (Medial-Lateral [M/L] Taper®, Trabecular Metal®, and Versys® Low Demand Fracture [LD/FX]). The final sample included 5676 cementless hemiarthroplasties: 653 Corail, 402 M/L Taper, 1699 Summit, 1590 Summit Basic, 384 Tri-Lock, 637 Trabecular Metal, and 311 Versys LD/FX. Procedures were performed by 396 surgeons at 35 hospitals. The mean age and BMI for the cohort was 81 years and 24 kg/m2, respectively; most were women (66% [3733 of 5676]) and White (79% [4488 of 5676]). Based on standardized mean differences, we controlled for age, race/ethnicity, American Society of Anesthesiologist (ASA) classification, anesthesia technique, operative year, average annual surgeon hemiarthroplasty volume, and operative year across the seven stem groups. Of the 5676 patients, 7% (378 of 5676) were lost to follow-up through membership termination at a median time of 1.6 years, and 56% (3194 of 5676) of the patients died during study follow-up. A multivariable cause-specific Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to evaluate the risk for aseptic revision with adjustment for age, gender, ASA classification, depression, operating surgeon, deficiency anemias, time from admission to surgery, and average annual surgeon hemiarthroplasty volume. A random intercept was included to address effects from hemiarthroplasties performed by the same surgeon. Risk for revision for periprosthetic fracture was also evaluated as a secondary outcome. RESULTS: In the adjusted analysis, the Summit Basic (HR 1.91 [95% confidence interval 1.34 to 2.72]; p < 0.001), the M/L Taper (HR 1.91 [95% CI 1.15 to 3.15]; p = 0.01), and the Versys LD/FX (HR 2.12 [95% CI 1.25 to 3.61]; p = 0.005) had higher aseptic revision risks during follow-up when compared with the Summit. No differences were observed for the Corail (HR 0.57 [95% CI 0.29 to 1.10]; p = 0.09), the Tri-Lock (HR 1.13 [95% CI 0.62 to 2.07]; p = 0.68), or the Trabecular Metal (HR 1.14 [95% CI 0.69 to 1.89]; p = 0.61) compared with the Summit. A higher risk for revision because of periprosthetic fracture was observed with the M/L Taper (HR 2.43 [95% CI 1.29 to 4.58]; p = 0.006) and the Summit Basic (within 3 months of follow-up: HR 1.16 [95% CI 0.60 to 2.25]; p = 0.66; after 3 months of follow-up: HR 2.84 [95% CI 1.36 to 5.94]; p = 0.006) stems when compared with the Summit. CONCLUSION: In a cohort of 5676 cementless hemiarthroplasties, we found differences in revision risks among different femoral stem brands. Based on our findings, we recommend against utilization of the Zimmer M/L Taper, DePuy Summit Basic, and Zimmer Versys LD/FX in the treatment of displaced geriatric femoral neck fractures with cementless hemiarthroplasty. Future large registry studies are needed to further elucidate differences in aseptic revision risk among higher performing cementless femoral stems. Although cemented fixation remains the recommended approach based on the best available evidence in hemiarthroplasty treatment of hip fractures, our findings may help to mitigate aseptic revision risk should cementless fixation be chosen. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Loose fit versus press fit stems and risk for surgical reintervention following radial head arthroplasty: A US-based cohort study of 1575 patients.

INTRODUCTION: Radial head arthroplasty (RHA) is performed with increasing frequency for reconstruction of comminuted radial head fractures. Implants can be categorized by stem design, either loose fit or press fit. Currently, the RHA literature does not suggest one implant type is superior to another based on revision and reoperation rates, although most RHA outcome studies have small numbers of patients with few events to detect a difference. This study evaluated the association between stem design and risk of revision and reoperation after RHA. METHODS: 1575 patients aged ≥18 years who underwent primary RHA within a US-based healthcare system were identified (2009-2021). Revision following the index RHA was the primary outcome of interest; ipsilateral reoperation was a secondary outcome. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression was used to evaluate the risk of outcomes by loose versus press fit with the adjustment for race/ethnicity, ASA classification, region, surgeon RHA volume, and simultaneous ipsilateral extremity procedures. RESULTS: Of the 1575 RHA, 681 (43.2%) received a loose fit stem. The cumulative revision probability was 2.6% for loose fit and 3.5% for press fit. In adjusted analysis, we did not observe a difference in risk of revision (HR=0.78, 95% CI=0.41-1.46) or reoperation (HR=0.73, 95% CI=0.43-1.25). Additionally, there were no observed differences in risk of revision (HR=0.62, 95% CI=0.28-1.38) or reoperation (HR=0.90, 95% CI=0.48-1.71) in the patient subgroup who underwent additional procedures in the same extremity at the time of RHA. CONCLUSION: In this large multi-center cohort of 1575 primary RHA, we did not observe a difference in risk of revision or reoperation following RHA based upon stem design. The choice between using an implant with a loose or press fit stem may be based more on surgeon familiarity, implant availability and cost, and ease of use.

No Difference in Survivorship Following Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty Using Ultra-Porous Acetabular Cups and Crosslinked Polyethylene With and Without Acetabular Screws in a Large US Healthcare System.

INTRODUCTION: Modern cementless acetabular cups for total hip arthroplasty (THA) typically have screw options. Historically, screws were thought to improve stability, but came at the cost of pathways for osteolysis. Modern cups and liners may have made both concerns obsolete, and the utility of screws are now contested. We sought to determine modern implant survivorship relative to screw use. METHODS: We conducted a cohort study. A US healthcare system's Total Joint Replacement Registry was used to identify patients ≥18 years who underwent uncomplicated primary THA for osteoarthritis (2010 to 2021) with an ultra-porous cup and cross-linked polyethylene liner, with- or without one to two acetabular screws. The primary outcome was acetabular revision for aseptic loosening. Secondary outcomes were aseptic revision for acetabular fracture and any revision for acetabular/femoral loosening and periprosthetic fracture. Multiple Cox proportional hazard regression was used to evaluate revision risk. There were 46,785 THAs identified. Screw use declined from 65.3 to 49.9%. RESULTS: No difference was observed in 10-year revision risk for acetabular loosening (0.2 versus 0.1%, hazard ratio [HR] 1.97, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.84 to 4.59, P = 0.119). There was one revision for acetabular fracture with and three revisions without screws. There was no difference in risk of overall acetabular or femoral revision, loosening, or periprosthetic fracture. There remained no difference in acetabular-sided loosening between routine screw users and non-users (0.15 versus 0.06%, HR 1.26, 95% CI 0.42 to 3.75, P = 0.683). CONCLUSIONS: In this study of survivorship following routine uncomplicated primary THA with modern cups and liners, screw usage patterns were associated with neither an advantage nor disadvantage - neither screw usage nor avoidance was associated with differences in acetabular loosening revision risk. Screw use was not associated with harm but remains debatable if there is an added benefit.

Can Dual Mobility Cups Reduce Revision and Dislocation Risks? An Analysis of 107,528 Primary Total Hip Arthroplasties in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Dual mobility acetabular cups (DMC) were designed to increase the effective femoral head size and improve stability with the goal of reducing revision risk at the potential cost of polyethylene thickness. We sought to evaluate revision risk following primary elective total hip arthroplasty with DMC compared to highly cross-linked polyethylene (XLPE). METHODS: A cohort study was conducted using data from a Kaiser Permanente's total joint arthroplasty registry. Patients ≥18 years who underwent primary elective total hip arthroplasty using DMC, unipolar Metal-on-XLPE (MoXLPE), or unipolar Ceramic-on-XLPE (CoXLPE) were identified (2010 to 2021). The final sample comprised 2,219 DMC, 48,251 MoXLPE, and 57,058 CoXLPE. Multiple Cox proportional hazard regressions were used to evaluate aseptic revision and any dislocation regardless of revision within 6 years follow-up. RESULTS: In adjusted analyses, no differences in aseptic revision risk were observed for MoXLPE (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.04, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.72 to 1.51) or CoXLPE (HR = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.69 to 1.40) compared to DMC. No differences in dislocation risk were observed for MoXLPE (HR = 1.42, 95% CI = 0.93 to 2.15) or CoXLPE (HR = 1.25, 95% CI = 0.84 to 1.87) compared to DMC. CONCLUSIONS: In a US-based cohort, 6-year aseptic revision risk of DMC was similar to metal or ceramic femoral head unipolar constructs. Furthermore, no difference in dislocation risk was observed. Continued longer-term follow-up may reveal if there is a reduced risk of dislocation that comes at the cost of increased late revision. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Risk for surgical interventions following endovascular aneurysm repair with Endologix AFX or AFX2 Endovascular AAA Systems compared with other devices.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the risk for 90-day returns to care and long-term subsequent surgical interventions after primary endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) with an Endologix AFX Endovascular AAA System compared with three other high-volume endograft devices. METHODS: We conducted a matched cohort study using data from Kaiser Permanente's Endovascular Stent Graft Registry. Patients aged ≥18 years who underwent primary EVAR for AAA in the health care system from January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2017, comprised the eligible study sample. The treatment group included patients who received an Endologix AFX or AFX2 device (n = 470). Patients who received one of three other high-volume endograft devices used within the health care system comprised the eligible comparison group (n = 2122). These patients were 2:1 propensity score matched without replacement to patients who received an Endologix device based on a number of patient and procedural characteristics. After the application of matching, conditional logistic regression was used to evaluate the likelihood for 90-day emergency department visit and readmission. Cause-specific Cox regression was used to evaluate the long-term risk of endoleak, graft revision, secondary reintervention (not including revision), conversion to open repair, and rupture during follow-up. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to evaluate the risk of mortality (overall and aneurysm related). RESULTS: The final matched study sample included 470 patients who received an Endologix AFX or AFX2 device and 940 patients who received a different high-volume device. compared with the other devices, AFX/AFX2 had a higher risk for type III endoleak (hazard ratio [HR], 38.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 14.51-103.67), revision surgery >1 year after the primary EVAR (HR, 4.50; 95% CI, 3.10-6.54), rupture (HR, 6.52; 95% CI, 1.73-24.63), and aneurysm-related mortality (HR, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.32-4.47) was observed with the use of AFX/AFX2. CONCLUSIONS: In our matched cohort study, patients who received an Endologix AFX System during their primary EVAR had a higher risk for several adverse longitudinal outcomes, as well as aneurysm-related mortality, when compared with patients who received other high-volume devices. Patients who have received these devices should be monitored closely after EVAR.

No difference in revision risk between autologous hamstring graft less than 8 mm versus hybrid graft 8 mm or larger in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

PURPOSE: Hamstring autograft (HA) is commonly used for primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). However, if the harvested HA is inadequate in diameter, it is often augmented with an allograft tendon, forming a hybrid graft (HY). This study sought to evaluate aseptic revision risk following HA versus HY ACLR. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed using data obtained from our healthcare system's ACLR registry. Patients ≤ 25 years of age who underwent primary isolated ACLR were identified (2005-2020). Graft type and diameter size was the primary exposure of interest: < 8 mm HA and ≥ 8 mm HY. A secondary analysis was performed to examine 7 mm HA and 7.5 mm HA vs ≥ 8 mm HY. Propensity score-weighted Cox proportional hazard regression was used to evaluate the risk of aseptic revision. RESULTS: The study sample included 1,945 ACLR: 548 ≥ 8 mm HY, 651 7 mm HA, and 672 7.5 mm HA. The crude cumulative aseptic revision probability at 8-years for ≥ 8 mm HY was 9.1%, 11.1% for 7 mm HA, and 11.2% for 7.5 mm HA. In adjusted analysis, no difference in revision risk was observed for < 8 mm HA (hazard ratio [HR] 1.15, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.72-1.82), 7 mm HA (HR 1.23, 95% CI 0.71-2.11), or 7.5 mm HA (HR 1.16, 95% CI 0.74-1.82) compared to ≥ 8 mm HY. CONCLUSION: In a US-based cohort of ACLR patients aged ≤ 25 years, we failed to observe any differences in aseptic revision risk for HA < 8 mm compared to HY ≥ 8 mm. Augmentation of a HA as small as 7 mm is not necessary to prevent a revision surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Tranexamic acid is not associated with decreased infection risk after primary shoulder arthroplasty: a cohort study of 9276 patients.

BACKGROUND: The use of tranexamic acid (TXA) is associated with less blood loss and reduced transfusion risk after shoulder arthroplasty surgery. Recent studies have shown lower odds of postoperative infection after hip or knee arthroplasty with its use. The purpose of this study was to determine whether TXA use reduces the risk of infection after primary elective shoulder arthroplasty. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using data from a US integrated health care system's shoulder arthroplasty registry. Patients aged 18 years who underwent primary elective anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty for osteoarthritis or primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty for rotator cuff arthropathy were included (2013-2020). We compared patients who received preoperative intravenous TXA to those who did not receive TXA by assessing the risk for revision due to deep infection within 5 years' follow-up using multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression. Interaction between TXA and diabetes status was analyzed separately. RESULTS: The study sample included 9276 shoulder arthroplasties performed by 153 surgeons at 43 hospitals. The mean age was 70.0 years and 48% were male. The 5-year probability of revision for deep infection was 0.8% and 0.7% for patients with and without TXA, respectively. We failed to observe a difference in infection risk after adjustment for confounders and surgeon differences (hazard ratio [HR] 1.00, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.56-1.80, P = .998). Further, no differences were observed in patients with (HR 1.64, 95% CI 0.42-6.44, P = .481) or without diabetes (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.40-1.55, P = .488). CONCLUSION: In a multicenter cohort of more than 9000 primary shoulder arthroplasty procedures, the use of preoperative TXA was not associated with a decrease in the 5-year probability of revision for deep infection.

Similar rates of revision surgery following primary anatomic compared with reverse shoulder arthroplasty in patients aged 70 years or older with glenohumeral osteoarthritis: a cohort study of 3791 patients.

BACKGROUND: Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA), initially indicated for cuff tear arthropathy, is increasingly used to treat elderly patients with primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis (GHOA) and an intact rotator cuff. This is often done to avoid revision surgery in elderly patients for rotator cuff failure with anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) despite traditionally good outcomes of TSA. We sought to determine whether there was a difference in outcomes in patients aged ≥70 years who received RTSA vs. TSA for GHOA. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using data from a US integrated health care system's shoulder arthroplasty registry. Patients aged ≥70 years who underwent primary shoulder arthroplasty for GHOA with an intact rotator cuff were included (2012-2021). RTSA was compared with TSA. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression was used to evaluate all-cause revision risk during follow-up, whereas multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate 90-day emergency department (ED) visits and 90-day readmissions. RESULTS: The final study sample comprised 685 RTSA patients and 3106 TSA patients. The mean age was 75.8 years (standard deviation, 4.6 years), and 43.4% of patients were men. After accounting for confounders, we observed no significant difference in all-cause revision risk for RTSA vs. TSA (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39-1.58). The most common reason for revision following RTSA was glenoid component loosening (40.0%). Over half of revisions following TSA were for rotator cuff tear (54.0%). No difference based on procedure type was observed in the likelihood of 90-day ED visits (odds ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.71-1.26) and 90-day readmissions (odds ratio, 1.32; 95% CI, 0.83-2.09). CONCLUSION: RTSA and TSA for GHOA with an intact rotator cuff in patients aged ≥70 years had a similar revision risk, as well as a similar likelihood of 90-day ED visits and readmissions. Although revision risk was similar, the most common causes of revision were different, with rotator cuff tears in TSA patients and glenoid component loosening in RTSA patients.

Association between same-day discharge shoulder arthroplasty and risk of adverse events in patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists classification ≥3: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Same-day discharge for shoulder arthroplasty (SA) is well-supported in the literature; however, most studies have focused on healthier patients. Indications for same-day discharge SA have expanded to include patients with more comorbidities, but safety of same-day discharge in this population remains unknown. We sought to compare outcomes following same-day discharge vs. inpatient SA in a cohort of patients considered higher risk for adverse events, defined as an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification of ≥3. METHODS: Data from Kaiser Permanente's SA registry were utilized to conduct a retrospective cohort study. All patients with an ASA classification of ≥3 who underwent primary elective anatomic or reverse SA in a hospital from 2018 to 2020 were included. The exposure of interest was in-hospital length of stay: same-day discharge vs. ≥1-night hospital inpatient stay. The likelihood of 90-day post-discharge events, including emergency department (ED) visit, readmission, cardiac complication, venous thromboembolism, and mortality, was evaluated using propensity score-weighted logistic regression with noninferiority testing using a margin of 1.10. RESULTS: The cohort included a total of 1814 SA patients, of whom 1005 (55.4%) had same-day discharge. In propensity score-weighted models, same-day discharge was not inferior to an inpatient stay SA regarding 90-day readmission (odds ratio [OR] = 0.64, one-sided 95% upper bound [UB] = 0.89) and overall complications (OR = 0.67, 95% UB = 1.00). We lacked evidence in support of noninferiority for 90-day ED visit (OR = 0.96, 95% UB = 1.18), cardiac event (OR = 0.68, 95% UB = 1.11), or venous thromboembolism (OR = 0.91, 95% UB = 2.15). Infections, revisions for instability, and mortality were too rare to evaluate using regression analysis. CONCLUSIONS: In a cohort of over 1800 patients with an ASA of ≥3, we found same-day discharge SA did not increase the likelihood of ED visits, readmissions, or complications compared with an inpatient stay, and same-day discharge was not inferior to an inpatient stay with regard to readmissions and overall complications. These findings suggest that it is possible to expand indications for same-day discharge SA in the hospital setting.

Comparison of 90-Day Adverse Events Associated With Aspirin and Potent Anticoagulation Use for Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis: A Cohort Study of 72,288 Total Knee and 35,142 Total Hip Arthroplasty Patients.

BACKGROUND: While aspirin is acceptable for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis following total joint arthroplasty in most patients, more potent agents are used in patients considered higher risk for VTE. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of aspirin versus potent anticoagulation agents following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and total hip arthroplasty (THA). METHODS: A cohort study of 72,288 TKA and 35,142 THA from the Kaiser Permanente Total Joint Replacement Registry was performed (2009 to 2019). Identified medications were aspirin, factor Xa inhibitors, low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), and warfarin. A validated VTE risk score was assigned to each patient. Propensity score-weighted logistic regressions were used to evaluate 90-day VTEs. Noninferiority testing was performed with a margin of 1.25 using the upper bound (UB) of the 1-sided 95% CI. RESULTS: For TKA, aspirin was not inferior to LMWH (odds ratio [OR] = 0.77, UB = 1.09) and warfarin (OR = 0.64, UB = 0.90); there was no evidence to support noninferiority of aspirin compared to factor Xa inhibitors. Findings were consistent for THA (LMWH: OR = 0.59, UB = 0.75; warfarin: OR = 0.69, UB = 0.89). TKA was considered higher risk for VTE, whereas aspirin use demonstrated noninferiority compared to warfarin (OR = 0.54, UB = 0.81), we lacked evidence of noninferiority when compared to LMWH and factor Xa inhibitors. We lacked evidence of noninferiority of aspirin versus any potent anticoagulation in higher-risk THA. CONCLUSION: Aspirin was found to be effective and safe for VTE prevention in primary total joint arthroplasty, including in patients considered higher risk for VTE. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Single Wedge Femoral Stem Designs are Associated With a Higher Risk for Revision After Cementless Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Cementless total hip arthroplasty (THA) femoral stems are the most commonly selected prostheses in the United States. Optimal stem geometry remains controversial with excellent survivorship reported for many designs. We compared cause-specific stem revision of single-wedge versus double-wedge designs from a multicenter US cohort. METHODS: Data from an integrated healthcare network's total joint replacement registry were used to conduct a cohort study. Primary elective cementless THAs were identified (2001 to 2018). Implant exposure groups were classified by design geometry using the system proposed by Khanuja et al. Type 1 single-wedge (n = 11,082) and type 2 double-wedge (n = 32,380) designs were compared, and other design types were excluded; the final study cohort comprised 43,462 THAs. Cause-specific multivariable Cox regressions were used to evaluate risk for revision due to infection or aseptic reasons, including loosening, instability, periprosthetic fracture, or other reasons. RESULTS: After adjustment for covariates, a higher aseptic revision risk was observed for type 1 when compared to type 2 designs (hazard ratio = 1.91, 95% confidence interval = 1.33-2.75). When looking at specific revision reasons, revision for aseptic loosening (hazard ratio = 3.46, 95% confidence interval = 2.24-5.34) was higher for type 1 versus type 2 designs. No differences were found for septic revision, instability, periprosthetic fracture, or revisions for other reasons. CONCLUSIONS: Type 1 single-wedge designs were found to have a higher risk of revision due to aseptic loosening relative to type 2 double-wedge designs. Femoral stem geometry should be considered when selecting a cementless femoral implant. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Prolonged Opioid Usage Following Hip Fracture Surgery in Opioid-Naïve Older Patients.

BACKGROUND: While the risk of long-term dependence following the opioid treatment of musculoskeletal injury is often studied in younger populations, studies in older patients have centered on short-term risks such as oversedation and delirium. This study investigated prolonged opioid usage after hip fracture in older individuals, focusing on prevalence, risk factors, and changes over time. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study of 47,309 opioid-naïve patients aged ≥ 60 years who underwent hip fracture surgery (2009 to 2020), outpatient opioid use was evaluated in 3 postoperative time periods: P1 (day 0 to 30 postsurgery); P2 (day 31 to 90); and P3 (day 91 to 180). The primary outcome was prolonged outpatient opioid use, defined as having one or more opioid prescriptions dispensed in all 3 time periods. RESULTS: The incidence of prolonged opioid usage among patients surviving to P3 was 6.3% (2,834 of 44,850). Initial prescription quantities decreased over time, as did the risk of prolonged opioid usage (from 8.0% in 2009 to 3.9% in 2019). In the multivariable analyses, risk factors for prolonged opioid usage included younger age, women, current/former smoking, fracture fixation (as compared to hemiarthroplasty), and anxiety. Prolonged opioid usage was less common among patients who were Asian or had a history of dementia. CONCLUSIONS: While prior research on the hazards of opioids in the elderly has focused on short-term risks such as oversedation and delirium, these findings suggest that prolonged opioid usage may be a risk for this older population as well. As initial prescription amounts have decreased, declines in prolonged opioid medication usage have also been observed.

Does Aseptic Revision Risk Differ for Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty Patients Who Have and Do not Have a Prior Primary or Revision Arthroplasty?

BACKGROUND: We sought to evaluate the risk of aseptic revision in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) patients who have and do not have a history of primary or revision arthroplasty of a different major joint. METHODS: We conducted a matched cohort study using data from Kaiser Permanente's arthroplasty registries. Patients who underwent primary unilateral TKA (index knee) were identified (2009-2018). Two matches based on exposure history were performed: (1) 33,714 TKAs with a history of primary arthroplasty of a different joint (contralateral knee, either hip, and/or either shoulder) were matched to 67,121 TKAs without an arthroplasty history and (2) 597 TKAs with a history of aseptic revision in a different joint were matched to 1,190 TKAs with a history of a prior arthroplasty in a different joint, but without any revision. After the matches were performed, Cox regressions were used to evaluate aseptic revision risk of the index knee using the no history groups as the reference in regression models. RESULTS: No difference in aseptic revision risk for the index knee was observed when comparing patients who had a prior primary arthroplasty in a different joint to those who did not have an arthroplasty history (hazard ratio = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.86-1.06). Those patients who did not have any prior aseptic revision history in a different joint had higher risk of aseptic revision in the index knee (hazard ratio = 2.06, 95% CI = 1.17-3.63). CONCLUSION: Patients who had a prior revision history had over a 2-fold higher risk of aseptic revision in the index knee, warranting close surveillance of these patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

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.

Decreasing trends in reintervention and readmission after endovascular aneurysm repair in a multiregional implant registry.

OBJECTIVE: As endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) matures into its third decade, measures such as long-term reintervention and readmission have become a focus of quality improvement efforts. Within a large United States integrated health care system, we describe time trends in the rates of long-term reinterventions utilization measures. METHODS: Data from a United States multiregional EVAR registry was used to perform a descriptive study of 3891 adults who underwent conventional infrarenal EVAR for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm between 2010 and 2019. Three-year follow-up was 96.7%. Outcomes included 1-, 3-, and 5-year graft revision (defined as a procedure involving placement of a new endograft component), secondary interventions (defined as a procedure necessary for maintenance of EVAR integrity [eg, coil embolization and balloon angioplasty/stenting]), conversion to open, interventions for type II endoleaks alone, and 90-day readmission. Crude cause-specific reintervention probabilities were calculated by operative year using the Aalen-Johansen estimator, with death as a competing risk and December 31, 2020 as the study end date. RESULTS: Excluding interventions for type II endoleak alone, 1-year secondary intervention incidence decreased from 5.9% for EVARs in 2010 to 2.0% in 2019 (P < .001) and 3-year incidence decreased from 7.2% to 3.6% from 2010 to 2017 (P = .03). The 3-year incidences of graft revision (mean incidence, 3.4%) and conversion to open remained fairly stable (mean incidence, 0.6%) over time. The 3-year incidence of interventions for type II endoleak alone also decreased from 3.4% in 2010 to 0.7% in 2017 (P = .01). Ninety-day readmission rates decreased from 19.3% for index EVAR in 2010 to 9.2% in 2019 (P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: Comprehensive data from a multiregional health care system demonstrates decreasing long-term secondary intervention and readmission rates over time in patients undergoing EVAR. These trends are not explained by evolving management of type II endoleaks and suggest improving graft durability, patient selection, or surgical technique. Further study is needed to define implant and anatomic predictors of different types of long-term reintervention.

Do Dual-mobility Cups Reduce Revision Risk in Femoral Neck Fractures Compared With Conventional THA Designs? An International Meta-analysis of Arthroplasty Registries.

BACKGROUND: Dual-mobility cups in THA were designed to reduce prosthesis instability and the subsequent risk of revision surgery in high-risk patients, such as those with hip fractures. However, there are limited data from clinical studies reporting a revision benefit of dual-mobility over conventional THA. Collaboration between anthroplasty registries provides an opportunity to describe international practice variation and compare between-country, all-cause revision rates for dual-mobility and conventional THA. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We summarized observational data from multiple arthroplasty registries for patients receiving either a dual-mobility or conventional THA to ask: (1) Is dual-mobility use associated with a difference in risk of all-cause revision surgery compared with conventional THA? (2) Are there specific patient characteristics associated with dual-mobility use in the hip fracture population? (3) Has the use of dual-mobility constructs changed over time in patients receiving a THA for hip fracture? METHODS: Six member registries of the International Society of Arthroplasty Registries (from Australia, Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States) provided custom aggregate data reports stratified by acetabular cup type (dual-mobility or conventional THA) in primary THA for hip fracture between January 1, 2002, and December 31, 2019; surgical approach; and patient demographic data (sex, mean age, American Society of Anesthesiologists class, and BMI). The cumulative percent revision and mortality were calculated for each registry. To determine a global hazard ratio of all-cause revision for dual-mobility compared with conventional THA designs, we used a pseudoindividual patient data approach to pool Kaplan-Meier prosthesis revision data from each registry and perform a meta-analysis. The pseudoindividual patient data approach is a validated technique for meta-analysis of aggregate time-to-event survival data, such as revision surgery, from multiple sources. Data were available for 15,024 dual-mobility THAs and 97,200 conventional THAs performed for hip fractures during the study period. RESULTS: After pooling of complete Kaplan-Meier survival data from all six registries, the cumulative percent revision for conventional THA was 4.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.2% to 4.5%) and 4.7% (95% CI 4.3% to 5.3%) for dual-mobility THA at 5 years. We did not demonstrate a lower risk of all-cause revision for patients receiving dual-mobility over conventional THA designs for hip fracture in the meta-analysis once between-registry differences were adjusted for (HR 0.96 [95% CI 0.86 to 1.06]). A lower proportion of dual-mobility procedures were revised for dislocation than conventional THAs (0.9% versus 1.4%) but a higher proportion were revised for infection (1.2% versus 0.8%). In most registries, a greater proportion of dual-mobility THA patients were older, had more comorbidities, and underwent a posterior approach compared with conventional THA (p < 0.001). The proportion of dual-mobility THA used to treat hip fractures increased in each registry over time and constituted 21% (2438 of 11,874) of all THA procedures in 2019. CONCLUSION: The proportion of dual-mobility THAs in patients with hip fractures increased over time, but there was large variation in use across countries represented here. Dual-mobility cups were not associated with a reduction in the overall risk of revision surgery in patients with hip fractures. A randomized controlled trial powered to detect the incidence of dislocation and subsequent revision surgery is required to clarify the efficacy of dual-mobility cups to treat hip fractures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Acute and subacute anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions are associated with a higher risk of revision and reoperation.

PURPOSE: (1) Report concomitant cartilage and meniscal injury at the time of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), (2) evaluate the risk of aseptic revision ACLR during follow-up, and (3) evaluate the risk of aseptic ipsilateral reoperation during follow-up. METHODS: Using a United States integrated healthcare system's ACLR registry, patients who underwent primary isolated ACLR were identified (2010-2018). Multivariable Cox proportional-hazards regression was used to evaluate the risk of aseptic revision, with a secondary outcome evaluating ipsilateral aseptic reoperation. Outcomes were evaluated by time from injury to ACLR: acute (< 3 weeks), subacute (3 weeks-3 months), delayed (3-9 months), and chronic (≥ 9 months). RESULTS: The final sample included 270 acute (< 3 weeks), 5971 subacute (3 weeks-3 months), 5959 delayed (3-9 months), and 3595 chronic (≥ 9 months) ACLR. Medial meniscus [55.4% (1990/3595 chronic) vs 38.9% (105/270 acute)] and chondral injuries [40.0% (1437/3595 chronic) vs 24.8% (67/270 acute)] at the time of ACLR were more common in the chronic versus acute groups. The crude 6-year revision rate was 12.9% for acute ACLR, 7.0% for subacute, 5.1% for delayed, and 4.4% for chronic ACLR; reoperation rates a 6-year follow-up was 15.0% for acute ACLR, 9.6% for subacute, 6.4% for delayed, and 8.1% for chronic ACLR. After adjustment for covariates, acute and subacute ACLR had higher risks for aseptic revision (acute HR 1.70, 95% CI 1.07-2.72, p = 0.026; subacute HR 1.25, 95% CI 1.01-1.55, p = 0.040) and aseptic reoperation (acute HR 2.04, 95% CI 1.43-2.91, p < 0.001; subacute HR 1.31, 95% CI 1.11-1.54, p = 0.002) when compared to chronic ACLR. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort study, while more meniscal and chondral injuries were reported for ACLR performed ≥ 9 months after the date of injury, a lower risk of revision and reoperation was observed following chronic ACLR relative to patients undergoing surgery in acute or subacute fashions.

Radial head arthroplasty: a descriptive study of 970 patients in an integrated health care system.

BACKGROUND: Radial head arthroplasty (RHA) is commonly performed for isolated comminuted radial head fractures and in conjunction with traumatic elbow instability. However, there is a paucity of literature directly describing the characteristics and outcomes of patients who undergo RHA in a community-based setting. We describe a cohort of 970 RHA performed in the California regions of a US integrated health care system over a 9-year period. Patient demographics, implant selection, 90-day acute postoperative events, and cumulative reoperation/revision rates are included. METHODS: Patients aged ≥18 years who underwent primary RHA were identified (2009-2017). Patient characteristics and demographics, including age, body mass index, gender, diabetes status, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, primary diagnosis, and concomitant procedures were described. Crude cumulative revision and reoperation probabilities were calculated as 1 minus the Kaplan-Meier estimator, with follow-up time calculated as the time from the index RHA to revision/reoperation date for those with the outcome of interest and time from index RHA to censoring date (eg, date of death, health care termination, study end date [March 31, 2018]) for those without the outcome. Ninety-day postoperative incidence of emergency department (ED) visit, readmission, and mortality was calculated as the number of patients with the event of interest over the number of patients at risk. RESULTS: A total of 970 patients underwent primary unilateral RHA by 205 surgeons during the study period. Annual procedure volume increased from 53 procedures in 2009 to 157 procedures in 2017. More patients were female, without diabetes, and had an ASA classification of 1 or 2. Fracture was the predominant indication for RHA (98.4%) and more than half (54.3%) had concomitant procedures performed. Most implants were press fit (63.2%) over loose fit, and >90% were monopolar. Three-year cumulative revision and reoperation probabilities following RHA were 6.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 5.0%-8.5%) and 8.2% (95% CI = 6.5%-10.3%), respectively. Revisions and reoperations tended to occur within the first postoperative year. Of the 970 RHA patients, 83 (8.5%) had a 90-day ED visit, 58 (6.0%) had a 90-day readmission, and 1 (0.1%) died within a 90-day postoperative period. CONCLUSION: This large cohort of RHA patients provides information about the practice of RHA at large and in the community. Surgeons are performing more RHA over time and choosing press fit stems more often. Revisions and reoperations tended to occur early. Readmission and ED visits were low but not negligible, with pain being the most common reason for ED visit.

The association between critical shoulder angle and revision following anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty: a matched case-control study.

HYPOTHESIS: The concept of the critical shoulder angle (CSA) was introduced in 2013, with studies showing that larger CSA is associated with rotator cuff tears (RCTs) and smaller CSA with glenohumeral osteoarthritis. We hypothesized outcomes following total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) would differ depending on CSA. METHODS: We conducted a matched case-control study using Kaiser Permanente's Shoulder Arthroplasty Registry to identify patients who underwent primary elective anatomic TSA for the diagnosis of osteoarthritis from 2009-2018. Seventy-eight adult patients who underwent revision following the primary TSA due to glenoid component failure or rotator cuff tear comprised the case group. A control group of nonrevised patients were identified from the same source population. Two controls were matched to each case by age, gender, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, surgeon who performed the index TSA, and post-TSA follow-up time. The relationship between revision and CSA as measured on radiographs were analyzed as a 1:2 matched-pairs case-control study with use of multiple conditional multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Revised cases had a higher likelihood of a CSA ≥35° (odds ratio [OR] = 2.41, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.27-4.59). A higher likelihood of CSA ≥35° was observed for those revised for glenoid loosening (OR = 4.58, 95% CI = 1.20-17.50) and revised for rotator cuff tear (OR = 2.41, 95% CI = 1.18-4.92) compared with nonrevised controls. Every 5° increase in CSA had higher odds of overall revision (OR = 1.62, 95% CI = 1.18-2.21), glenoid loosening (OR = 2.50, 95% CI = 1.27-4.92), and rotator cuff tear (OR = 1.51, 95% CI = 1.07-2.14). CONCLUSION: In a matched case-control study of primary anatomic TSA, individuals who were revised for aseptic glenoid loosening and superior cuff failure had a higher CSA compared with nonrevised individuals. These data suggest that surgeons may consider using reverse arthroplasty in cases of primary shoulder arthritis with a CSA of 35° or greater.

Is There Harm in Debridement, Antibiotics, and Implant Retention Versus Two-Stage Revision in the Treatment of Periprosthetic Knee Infection? Experiences Within a Large US Health Care System.

BACKGROUND: When faced with a periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following total knee arthroplasty, the treating surgeon must determine whether 2-stage revision or "liner exchange," aka debridement, antibiotics, exchange of the modular polyethylene liner, and retention of fixed implants (DAIR), offers the best balance of infection eradication versus treatment morbidity. We sought to determine septic re-revision risk following DAIR compared to initial 2-stage revision. METHODS: We conducted a cohort study using data from Kaiser Permanente's total joint replacement registry. Primary total knee arthroplasty patients who went on to have a PJI treated by DAIR or 2-stage revision were included (2005-2018). Propensity score-weighted Cox regression was used to evaluate risk for septic re-revision. RESULTS: In total, 1,410 PJIs were included, 1,000 (70.9%) treated with DAIR. Applying propensity score weights, patients undergoing DAIR had a higher risk for septic re-revision compared to initial 2-stage procedures (hazard ratio 3.09, 95% CI 2.22-4.42). Of DAIR procedures, 150 failed (15%) and went on to subsequent 2-stage revision (DAIR-F). When compared to patients undergoing an initial 2-stage revision, we failed to observe a difference in septic re-revision risk following DAIR-F (hazard ratio 1.11, 95% CI 0.58-2.12). CONCLUSION: Although DAIR had a higher risk of septic re-revision, we failed to observe a difference in risk following DAIR-F when compared to those who initially underwent 2-stage revision. Functional outcome, patient, and organism factors are important to consider when discussing PJI management options. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.