Patients' experience on pain outcomes after hip arthroplasty: insights from an information tool based on registry data.

BACKGROUND: Arthroplasty registries are rarely used to inform encounters between clinician and patient. This study is part of a larger one which aimed to develop an information tool allowing both to benefit from previous patients' experience after total hip arthroplasty (THA). This study focuses on generating the information tool specifically for pain outcomes. METHODS: Data from the Geneva Arthroplasty Registry (GAR) about patients receiving a primary elective THA between 1996 and 2019 was used. Selected outcomes were identified from patient and surgeon surveys: pain walking, climbing stairs, night pain, pain interference, and pain medication. Clusters of patients with homogeneous outcomes at 1, 5, and 10 years postoperatively were generated based on selected predictors evaluated preoperatively using conditional inference trees (CITs). RESULTS: Data from 6,836 THAs were analysed and 14 CITs generated with 17 predictors found significant (p < 0.05). Baseline WOMAC pain score, SF-12 self-rated health (SRH), number of comorbidities, SF-12 mental component score, and body mass index (BMI) were the most common predictors. Outcome levels varied markedly by clusters whilst predictors changed at different time points for the same outcome. For example, 79% of patients with good to excellent SRH and less than moderate preoperative night pain reported absence of night pain at 1 year after THA; in contrast, for those with fair/poor SHR this figure was 50%. Also, clusters of patients with homogeneous levels of night pain at 1 year were generated based on SRH, Charnley, WOMAC night and pain scores, whilst those at 10 years were based on BMI alone. CONCLUSIONS: The information tool generated under this study can provide prospective patients and clinicians with valuable and understandable information about the experiences of "patients like them" regarding their pain outcomes.

Reliability of the Harris Hip limping sub-score in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty.

PURPOSE: In patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty, limping is a significant symptom, often assessed with the limping sub-score of the Harris Hip Score. However, the reliability of this sub-score has not been specifically investigated. The purpose of this study is to investigate the intra- and inter-rater reliability of this sub-score. METHODS: Thirty patients undergoing THA were recruited and performed a gait analysis before surgery and three months after surgery. In addition, 30 asymptomatic participants were included. In total, 90 visits were analysed in this study. The HHS limping sub-score was assessed for each visit using a video (front and back view side-by-side) of a ten metre walk at a self-selected speed. Two orthopaedic surgeons evaluated the limping of each video in two different grading sessions with a one week delay. To avoid recall bias, the patient's number identity was randomized and different for each grading session and each rater. The weighted Cohen's Kappa coefficient was used to quantify the intra- and inter-reliability. The reliability of three components was studied: the presence of limping, its severity, and the compensation type. RESULTS: For all components, the agreement for intra-rater reliability ranged from moderate to strong and from none to moderate for the inter-rater reliability. CONCLUSION: These results do not encourage the use of HHS-limping sub-score for data involving different raters in both clinical and research contexts. It calls for improved consensus on limping definitions or the creation of objective measures.

International trends in shoulder replacement: a meta-analysis from 11 public joint registers.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: International variation exists in the types of shoulder replacement used for treatment of specific diseases. Implant choice continues to evolve without high-quality evidence. Our aim was to evaluate trends in incidence rates of shoulder replacement and assess any recent changes in practice between countries by using registry data. METHODS: Patient characteristics, indication and year of surgery, type of replacement, and collection methods of patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) was extracted from 11 public joint registries. Meta-analyses examined use of reverse total shoulder replacement (RTSR) for osteoarthritis, cuff tear arthropathy, and acute fracture; use of anatomical total shoulder replacement (TSR) for osteoarthritis; and use of humeral hemiarthroplasty for fracture. RESULTS: The annual growth rate of shoulder replacements performed is 6-15% (2011-2019). The use of RTSR has almost doubled (93%). RTSR is now universally performed for cuff tear arthropathy (97.3%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 96.0-98.1). Its use for avascular necrosis, trauma, and inflammatory arthropathy is increasing. The use of RTSR was similar (43.1%, CI 30.0-57.2) versus TSR (44.7%, CI 31.1-59.1) for osteoarthritis. The types of PROMs used, collection time points, and response rates lack standardization. COVID-19 had a varying inter-registry impact on incidence rates. CONCLUSION: The incidence of shoulder replacements has grown. Use of RTSR has increased for all disease indications despite limited high-quality evidence driving this change in indications outside of cuff arthropathy. Consequently, less variation is observed in international practice. Existing differences now relate to use of newer implant types and methodology of PROMs collection, which prevents international comparison and outcome analysis.

Radiographic signs and hip pain 5 years after THA with a cemented stem predict future revision for aseptic loosening: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: We aimed to evaluate the long-term predictive value of radiographic abnormality and/or hip pain assessed 5 years following primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) and the occurrence of revision for aseptic loosening between 5 and 25 years postoperatively. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We included all primary THAs performed between 1996 and 2011 (same uncemented cup, polyethylene-ceramic bearing, 28 mm head, cemented stem) and prospectively enrolled in the institutional registry, for whom baseline and follow-up radiographs were available. At 5 years radiographically we assessed femoral osteolysis and/or stem migration. Pain was evaluated with the Harris Hip pain subscore. Kaplan-Meier survival and Cox regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: 1,317 primary THAs were included. 25 THAs (2%) were revised for aseptic stem loosening. Any abnormal radiographic sign at 5 years was present in 191 THAs (14%). Occasional hip pain was reported by 20% and slight to severe pain by 12% of patients at 5 years. In patients < 60 years, 10 of the 12 later revised for aseptic stem loosening had abnormal radiographs at 5 years vs. 5 of the 13 later revised in those ≥ 60 years. Hazard ratios (HR) were 34 (95% confidence interval [CI] 7-155) in younger vs. 4 (CI 1-11) in the older group. HR for association of hip pain at 5 years with future revision was 3 (CI 1-5). CONCLUSION: The presence of abnormal radiographic signs 5 years after THA was strongly associated with later revision for aseptic stem loosening, especially in patients < 60 years. The association between pain at 5 years and future revision was much weaker.

Intensive physical activity following total hip arthroplasty increased the revision risk after 15 years: a cohort study of 973 patients from the Geneva Arthroplasty Register.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Younger recipients of total hip arthroplasty (THA) highly prioritize returning to preoperative levels of physical activity (PA). Surgeons have tended to give cautious advice concerning high-impact sports participation, but there have been few long-term studies. The purpose of our study was to investigate the risk of revision arthroplasty in relation to postoperative PA levels. METHODS: Patients registered in the Geneva Arthroplasty Register (GAR) who had elective THA when they were aged < 65 years were studied. Postoperative PA was collected prospectively 5-yearly using the UCLA activity scale. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate associations between PA and risk of revision THA. RESULTS: Amongst 1,370 eligible subjects, median age at THA 58 years (interquartile range 51-61), UCLA scores were available for 973 (71%). During follow-up over 15 years, there were 79 revisions, giving a cumulative risk of 7.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] 5.8-9.4). After adjusting for covariates, we found an increased risk of revision for each unit increase in postoperative PA (HR 1.2, CI 1.1-1.4), and among people performing the most intensive PA (HR 2.7, CI 1.3-5.6) compared with those who were inactive. CONCLUSION: The overall risk of revision was small but intensive and moderate PA may be associated with an increased risk of revision.

Validating Orthopaedic Data Evaluation Panel (ODEP) Ratings Across 9 Orthopaedic Registries: Total Hip Implants with an ODEP Rating Perform Better Than Those without an ODEP Rating.

BACKGROUND: Orthopaedic Data Evaluation Panel (ODEP) ratings of total hip (TH) and total knee (TK) implants are informative for assessing implant performance. However, the validity of ODEP ratings across multiple registries is unknown. Therefore, we aimed to assess, across multiple registries, whether TH and TK implants with a higher ODEP rating (i.e., an A* rating) have lower cumulative revision risks (CRRs) than those with a lower ODEP rating (i.e., an A rating) and the extent to which A* and A-rated implants would be A*-rated on the basis of the pooled registries' CRR. METHODS: Implant-specific CRRs at 3, 5, and 10 years that were reported by registries were matched to ODEP ratings on the basis of the implant name. A meta-analysis with random-effects models was utilized for pooling the CRRs. ODEP benchmark criteria were utilized to classify these pooled CRRs. RESULTS: A total of 313 TH cups (54%), 356 TH stems (58%), 218 TH cup-stem combinations (34%), and 68 TK implants (13%) with unique brand names reported by registries were matched to an ODEP rating. Given the low percentage that matched, TK implants were not further analyzed. ODEP-matched TH implants had lower CRRs than TH implants without an ODEP rating at all follow-up time points, although the difference for TH stems was not significant at 5 years. No overall differences in CRRs were found between A* and A-rated TH implants, with the exception of TH cup-stem combinations, which demonstrated a significantly lower CRR for A*A*-rated cup-stem combinations at the 3-year time point. Thirty-nine percent of A*-rated cups and 42% of A*-rated stems would receive an A* rating on the basis of the pooled registries' CRR at 3 years; however, 24% of A-rated cups and 31% of A-rated stems would also receive an A* rating, with similar findings demonstrated at longer follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: At all follow-up time points, ODEP-matched TH implants had lower CRRs than TH implants without an ODEP rating. Given that the performance of TH implants varied across countries, registries should first validate ODEP ratings with use of country-specific revision data to better guide implant selection in their country. Data source transparency and the use of revision data from multiple registries would strengthen the ODEP benchmarks. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.