Antibiotic utilisation in primary and revision total hip replacement patients: A registry linkage cohort study of 106 253 patients using the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry.

PURPOSE: Infection is a major complication following joint replacement (JR) surgery. However, little data exist regarding antibiotic utilisation following primary JR and how use changes with subsequent revision surgery. This study aimed to examine variation in antibiotic utilisation rates before and after hip replacement surgery in those revised for infection, revised for other reasons and those without revision. METHODS: This retrospective cohort analysis used linked data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry and Australian Government Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Patients were included if undergoing total hip replacement (THR) for osteoarthritis in private hospitals between 2002 and 2017. Three groups were examined: primary THR with no subsequent revision (n = 102 577), primary THR with a subsequent revision for reasons other than periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) (n = 3156) and primary THR with a subsequent revision for PJI (n = 520). Monthly antibiotic utilisation rates and prevalence rate ratios (PRRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated in the 2 years pre- and post-THR. RESULTS: Prior to primary THR antibiotic utilisation was 9%-10%. After primary THR, antibiotic utilisation rates were higher among patients revised for PJI (PRR 1.69, 95% CI 1.60-1.79) compared to non-revised patients, while the utilisation rate was lower in patients revised for reasons other than infection (PRR 0.96, 95% CI 0.93-0.98). For those revised for infection, antibiotic utilisation post-revision surgery was two times higher than those revised for other reasons (PRR 2.16, 95% CI 2.08-2.23). Utilisation of injectable antibiotics including, vancomycin, flucloxacillin and cephazolin was higher in those revised for PJI patients 0-2 weeks following surgery but not in those revised for other reasons compared to the non-revised group. CONCLUSIONS: Ongoing antibiotic utilisation after primary surgery may be an early signal of problems with the THR and should be a prompt for primary care physicians to refer patients to specialists for further appropriate investigations and management.

Obesity is associated with an increased risk of undergoing shoulder arthroplasty in Australia.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to examine the incidence of overweight and obesity in patients undergoing primary total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) for osteoarthritis (OA) in Australia compared to the incidence of obesity in the general population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 2017/18 cohort consisting of 2997 patients from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) who underwent TSA were compared with matched controls from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) National Health Survey from the same time period. The 2 groups were analyzed according to body mass index (BMI) category, sex, and age. RESULTS: According to the 2017/18 National Health Survey, 35.6% of Australian adults were overweight and 31.3% were obese. Of the primary TSA cases performed, 34.9% were overweight and 50.1% were obese. The relative risk of requiring TSA for OA increased with increasing BMI category. Class III obese females, aged 55-64, were 8.6 times more likely to receive a TSA compared to their normal weight counterparts. Males in the same age and BMI category were 2.5 times more likely. Class III obese patients underwent TSA 4 years (female) and 6 years (male) younger than their normal weight counterparts. CONCLUSION: Obesity significantly increases the risk of requiring TSA. The association appears to be particularly strong for younger females.

Hip Arthroplasty Outcomes in the Presence of Kidney Failure: A National Data Linkage Study.

BACKGROUND: Patients who have kidney failure are at higher risk of requiring total hip arthroplasty (THA) and are at higher risk of complications. This study compared the rate of revision surgery and mortality following THA between patients who have kidney failure receiving long term dialysis or who had a kidney transplant and those who did not have kidney failure. METHODS: A data linkage study was performed using data from 2 national registries: a registry of dialysis and kidney transplant patients and a registry of THA procedures. Both registries had coverage of almost all procedures or treatments in Australia. Data from September 1999 to December 2016 were used. Mortality and revision surgery were compared between patients receiving dialysis, those who had a functioning kidney transplant, and patients who did not have kidney failure using Cox and Fine-Gray (competing risk) regression models. A total of 383,478 primary THA procedures were identified as people receiving dialysis (n = 490), who had a functioning kidney transplant (n = 459), or who did not have kidney failure (n = 382,529). RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the overall rate of revision surgery between the groups (dialysis versus no kidney failure HR = 1.20; 95% CI 0.76, 1.88, transplant versus no kidney failure (hazard ratio) HR = 1.01; 95% (confidence interval) CI 0.66, 1.53). The risk for death after surgery was significantly higher in the dialysis group compared to both the functioning transplant group (HR = 3.44; 95%CI 1.58, 7.5), and in those without kidney failure (HR = 4.13; 95%CI 3.25, 5.25). CONCLUSION: The rate of mortality after THA in patients on dialysis is higher than in patients who have a functioning transplant or those who do not have kidney failure, but there is no early excess mortality to suggest a difference in this metric due to the surgery.

Association between socioeconomic status and joint replacement of the hip and knee: a population-based cohort study of older adults in Tasmania.

BACKGROUND: A socioeconomic gradient exists in the utilisation of total hip replacements (THR) and total knee replacements (TKR) for osteoarthritis. However, the relations between socioeconomic status (SES) and time to THR or TKR is unknown. AIM: To describe the association between SES and time to THR and TKR. METHODS: One thousand and seventy-two older adults residing in Tasmania, Australia, were studied. Incident primary THR and TKR were determined by data linkage to the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. At baseline, each participant's area-level SES was determined using the Index of Relative Socioeconomic Advantage and Disadvantage (IRSAD) from the Australian Bureau of Statistics' 2001 census data. The IRSAD was analysed in two ways: (i) categorised into quartiles, whereby quartile 1 represented the most socioeconomically disadvantaged group; and (ii) the cohort dichotomised at the quartile 1 cut-point. RESULTS: The mean age was 63.0 (±7.5) years and 51% were women. Over the median follow up of 12.9 (interquartile range: 12.2-13.9) years, 56 (5%) participants had a THR and 79 (7%) had a TKR. Compared with the most disadvantaged quartile, less disadvantaged participants were less likely to have a THR (i.e. less disadvantaged participants had a longer time to THR; hazard ratio (HR): 0.56; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.32, 1.00) but not TKR (HR: 0.90; 95% CI 0.53, 1.54). However, the former became non-significant after adjustment for pain and radiographic osteoarthritis, suggesting that the associations may be mediated by these factors. CONCLUSIONS: The present study suggests that time to joint replacement was determined according to the symptoms/need of the participants rather than their SES.

In Revision THA, Is the Re-revision Risk for Dislocation and Aseptic Causes Greater in Dual-mobility Constructs or Large Femoral Head Bearings? A Study from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry.

BACKGROUND: Dislocation is one of the most common causes of a re-revision after a revision THA. Dual-mobility constructs and large femoral head bearings (≥ 36 mm) are known options for mitigating this risk. However, it is unknown which of these choices is better for reducing the risk of dislocation and all-cause re-revision surgery. It is also unknown whether there is a difference between dual-mobility constructs and large femoral head bearings according to the size of the acetabular component. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We used data from a large national registry to ask: In patients undergoing revision THA for aseptic causes after a primary THA performed for osteoarthritis, (1) Does the proportion of re-revision surgery for prosthesis dislocation differ between revision THAs performed with dual-mobility constructs and those performed with large femoral head bearings? (2) Does the proportion of re-revision surgery for all aseptic causes differ between revision THAs performed with dual-mobility constructs and those performed with large femoral head bearings? (3) Is there a difference when the results are stratified by acetabular component size? METHODS: Data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) were analyzed for 1295 first-revision THAs for aseptic causes after a primary THA performed for osteoarthritis. The study period was from January 2008-when the first dual-mobility prosthesis was recorded-to December 2019. There were 502 dual-mobility constructs and 793 large femoral head bearings. There was a larger percentage of women in the dual-mobility construct group (67% [334 of 502]) compared with the large femoral head bearing group (51% [402 of 793]), but this was adjusted for in the statistical analysis. Patient ages were similar for the dual-mobility construct group (67 ± 11 years) and the large femoral head group (65 ± 12 years). American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class and BMI distributions were similar. The mean follow-up was shorter for dual-mobility constructs at 2 ± 1.8 years compared with 4 ± 2.9 years for large femoral head bearings. The cumulative percent revision (CPR) was determined for a diagnosis of prosthesis dislocation as well as for all aseptic causes (excluding infection). Procedures using metal-on-metal bearings were excluded. The time to the re-revision was described using Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship, with right censoring for death or database closure at the time of analysis. The unadjusted CPR was estimated each year of the first 5 years for dual-mobility constructs and for each of the first 9 years for large femoral head bearings, with 95% confidence intervals using unadjusted pointwise Greenwood estimates. The apparent shorter follow-up of the dual-mobility construct group relates to the more recent increase in dual-mobility numbers recorded in the registry. The results were adjusted for age, gender, and femoral fixation. Results were subanalyzed for acetabular component sizes < 58 mm and ≥ 58 mm, set a priori on the basis of biomechanical and other registry data. RESULTS: There was no difference in the proportion of re-revision for prosthesis dislocation between dual-mobility constructs and large femoral head bearings (hazard ratio 1.22 [95% CI 0.70 to 2.12]; p = 0.49). At 5 years, the CPR of the re-revision for prosthesis dislocation was 4.0% for dual mobility constructs (95% CI 2.3% to 6.8%) and 4.1% for large femoral head bearings (95% CI 2.7% to 6.1%). There was no difference in the proportion of all aseptic-cause second revisions between dual-mobility constructs and large femoral head bearings (HR 1.02 [95% CI 0.76 to 1.37]; p = 0.89). At 5 years, the CPR of dual-mobility constructs was 17.6% for all aseptic-cause second revision (95% CI 12.6% to 24.3%) and 17.8% for large femoral head bearings (95% CI 14.9% to 21.2%). When stratified by acetabular component sizes less than 58 mm and at least 58 mm, there was no difference in the re-revision CPR for dislocation or for all aseptic causes between dual-mobility constructs and large femoral head bearings. CONCLUSION: Either dual-mobility constructs or large femoral head bearings can be used in revision THA, regardless of acetabular component size, as they did not differ in terms of re-revision rates for dislocation and all aseptic causes in this registry study. Longer term follow-up is required to assess whether complications develop with either implant or whether a difference in revision rates becomes apparent. Ongoing follow-up and comparison in a registry format would seem the best way to compare long-term complications and revision rates. Future studies should also compare surgeon factors and whether they influence decision-making between prosthesis options and second revision rates. Nested randomized controlled trials in national registries would seem a viable option for future research. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

What Can We Learn From Surgeons Who Perform THA and TKA and Have the Lowest Revision Rates? A Study from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry.

BACKGROUND: Long-term implant survivorship in THA and TKA involves a combination of factors related to the patient, the implants used, and the decision-making and technical performance of the surgeon. It is unclear which of these factors is the most important in reducing the proportion of revision surgery. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We used data from a large national registry to ask: In patients receiving primary THA and TKA for a diagnosis of osteoarthritis, do (1) the reasons for revision and (2) patient factors, the implants used, and the surgeon or surgical factors differ between surgeons performing THA and TKA who have a lower revision rate compared with all other surgeons? METHODS: Data were analyzed for all THA and TKA procedures performed for a diagnosis of osteoarthritis from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) from September 1, 1999, when collection began, to December 31, 2018. The AOANJRR obtains data on more than 98% of joint arthroplasties performed in Australia. The 5-year cumulative percent revision (CPR) was identified for all THAs and TKAs performed for a diagnosis of osteoarthritis with 95% confidence intervals (overall CPR); the 5-year CPR with 95% CIs for each surgeon was calculated for THA and TKA separately. For surgeons to be included in the analysis, they had to have performed at least 50 procedures and have a 5-year CPR. The 5-year CPR with 95% CIs for each THA and TKA surgeon was compared with the overall CPR. Two groups were defined: low revision rate surgeons (the upper confidence level for a given surgeon at 5 years is less than 3.84% for THA and 4.32% for TKA), and all other surgeons (any surgeon whose CPR was higher than those thresholds). The thresholds were determined by setting a cutoff at 20% above the upper confidence level for that class. The approach we used to define a low revision rate surgeon was similar to that used by the AOANJRR for determining the better-performing prostheses and is recommended by the International Prosthesis Benchmarking Working Group. By defining the groups in this way, a significant difference between these two groups is created. Determining a reason for this difference is the purpose of presenting the proportions of different factors within each group. The study group for THA included 116 low revision rate surgeons, who performed 88,392 procedures (1619 revised, 10-year CPR 2.7% [95% CI 2.6% to 2.9%]) and 433 other surgeons, who performed 170,094 procedures (6911 revised, 10-year CPR 5.9% [95% CI 5.7% to 6.0%]). The study group for TKA consisted of 144 low revision rate surgeons, who performed 159,961 procedures (2722 revised, 10-year CPR 2.6% [95% CI 2.5% to 2.8%]) and 534 other surgeons, who performed 287,232 procedures (12,617 revised, 10-year CPR 6.4% [95% CI 6.3% to 6.6%]). These groups were defined a priori by their rate of revision, and the purpose of this study was to explore potential reasons for this observed difference. RESULTS: For THA, the difference in overall revision rate between low revision rate surgeons and other surgeons was driven mainly by fewer revisions for dislocation, followed by component loosening and fracture in patients treated by low revision rate surgeons. For TKA, the difference in overall revision rate between low revision rate surgeons and other surgeons was driven mainly by fewer revisions for aseptic loosening, followed by instability and patellofemoral complications in patients treated by low revision rate surgeons. Patient-related factors were generally similar between low revision rate surgeons and other surgeons for both THA and TKA. Regarding THA, there were differences in implant factors, with low revision rate surgeons using fewer types of implants that have been identified as having a higher-than-anticipated rate of revision within the AOANJRR. Low revision rate surgeons used a higher proportion of hybrid fixation, although cementless fixation remained the most common choice. For surgeon factors, low revision rate surgeons were more likely to perform more than 100 THA procedures per year, while other surgeons were more likely to perform fewer than 50 THA procedures per year. In general, the groups of surgeons (low revision rate surgeons and other surgeons) differed less in terms of years of surgical experience than they did in terms of the number of cases they performed each year, although low revision rate surgeons, on average, had more years of experience and performed more cases per year. Regarding TKA, there were more differences in implant factors than with THA, with low revision rate surgeons more frequently performing patellar resurfacing, using an AOANJRR-identified best-performing prosthesis combination (with the lowest rates of revision), using fewer implants that have been identified as having a higher-than-anticipated rate of revision within the AOANJRR, using highly crosslinked polyethylene, and using a higher proportion of cemented fixation compared with other surgeons. For surgeon factors, low revision rate surgeons were more likely to perform more than 100 TKA procedures per year, whereas all other surgeons were more likely to perform fewer than 50 procedures per year. Again, generally, the groups of surgeons (low revision rate surgeons and other surgeons) differed less in terms of years of surgical experience than they did in terms of the number of cases they performed annually, although low revision rate surgeons, on average, had more years of experience and performed more cases per year. CONCLUSION: THAs and TKAs performed by surgeons with the lowest revision rates in Australia show reductions in all of the leading causes of revision for both THA and TKA, in particular, causes of revision related to the technical performance of these procedures. Patient factors were similar between low revision rate surgeons and all other surgeons for both THA and TKA. Low revision rate THA surgeons were more likely to use cement fixation selectively. Low revision rate TKA surgeons were more likely to use patella resurfacing, crosslinked polyethylene, and cemented fixation. Low revision rate THA and TKA surgeons were more likely to use an AOANJRR-identified best-performing prosthesis combination and to use fewer implants identified by the AOANJRR as having a higher-than-anticipated revision rate. To reduce the rate of revision THA and TKA, surgeons should consider addressing modifiable factors related to implant selection. Future research should identify surgeon factors beyond annual case volume that are important to improving implant survivorship. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

What Is the Outcome of the First Revision Procedure of Primary THA for Osteoarthritis? A Study From the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry.

BACKGROUND: Joint arthroplasty registries traditionally report survivorship outcomes mainly on primary joint arthroplasty. The outcome of first revision procedures is less commonly reported, because large numbers of primary procedures are required to analyze a sufficient number of first revision procedures. Additionally, adequate linkage of primary procedures to revisions and mortality is required. When undertaking revision hip surgery, it is important for surgeons to understand the outcomes of these procedures to better inform patients. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: Using data from a large national joint registry, we asked: (1) What is the overall rate of revision of the first aseptic revision procedure for a primary THA? (2) Does the rate of revision of the first revision vary by the diagnosis for the first revision? (3) What is the mortality after the first revision, and does it vary by the reason for first revision? METHODS: The Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry longitudinally maintains data on all primary and revision joint arthroplasties, with nearly 100% capture. The analyses for this study were performed on primary THA procedures in patients with a diagnosis of osteoarthritis up to December 31, 2020, who had undergone subsequent revision. We excluded all primary THAs involving metal-on-metal and ceramic-on-metal bearing surfaces and prostheses with exchangeable necks because these designs may have particular issues associated with revisions, such as extensive soft tissue destruction, that are not seen with conventional bearings, making a comparative analysis of the first revision involving these bearing surfaces more complicated. Metal-on-metal bearing surfaces have not been used in Australia since 2017. We identified 17,046 first revision procedures from the above study population and after exclusions, included 13,713 first revision procedures in the analyses. The mean age at the first revision was 71 ± 11 years, and 55% (7496 of 13,713) of the patients were women. The median (IQR) time from the primary procedure to the first revision was 3 years (0.3 to 7.3), ranging from 0.8 years for the diagnosis of dislocation and instability to 10 years for osteolysis. There was some variation depending on the reason for the first revision. For example, patients undergoing revision for fracture were slightly older (mean age 76 ± 11 years) and patients undergoing revision for dislocation were more likely to be women (61% [2213 of 3620]). The registry has endeavored to standardize the sequence of revisions and uses a numerical approach to describe revision procedures. The first revision is the revision of a primary procedure, the second revision is the revision of the first revision, and so on. We therefore described the outcome of the first revision as the cumulative percent second revision. The outcome measure was the cumulative percent revision, which was defined using Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship to describe the time to the second revision. Hazard ratios from Cox proportional hazards models, adjusting for age and gender, were performed to compare the revision rates among groups. When possible, the cumulative percent second revision at the longest follow-up timepoint was determined with the available data, and when there were insufficient numbers, we used appropriate earlier time periods. RESULTS: The cumulative percent second revision at 18 years was 26% (95% confidence interval [CI] 24% to 28%). When comparing the outcome of the first revision by reason, prosthesis dislocation or instability had the highest rate of second revision compared with the other reasons for first revision. Dual-mobility prostheses had a lower rate of second revision for dislocation or instability than head sizes 32 mm or smaller and when compared to constrained prostheses after 3 months. There was no difference between dual-mobility prostheses and head sizes larger than 32 mm. There were no differences in the rate of second revision when first revisions for loosening, periprosthetic fracture, and osteolysis were compared. If cemented femoral fixation was performed at the time of the first revision, there was a higher cumulative percent second revision for loosening than cementless fixation from 6 months to 6 years, and after this time, there was no difference. The overall mortality after a first revision of primary conventional THA was 1% at 30 days, 2% at 90 days, 5% at 1 year, and 40% at 10 years. A first revision for periprosthetic fracture had the highest mortality at all timepoints compared with other reasons for the first revision. CONCLUSION: Larger head sizes and dual-mobility cups may help reduce further revisions for dislocation, and the use of cementless stems for a first revision for loosening seems advantageous. Surgeons may counsel patients about the higher risk of death after first revision procedures, particularly if the first revision is performed for periprosthetic fracture.Level of Evidence Level III, therapeutic study.

Poor Knee-specific and Generic Patient-reported Outcome Measure Scores at 6 Months Are Associated With Early Revision Knee Arthroplasty: A Study From the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry.

BACKGROUND: The ability to identify which patients are at a greater risk of early revision knee arthroplasty has important practical and resource implications. Many international arthroplasty registries administer patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to provide a holistic assessment of pain, function, and quality of life. However, few PROM scores have been evaluated as potential indicators of early revision knee arthroplasty, and earlier studies have largely focused on knee-specific measures. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: This national registry-based study asked: (1) Which 6-month postoperative knee-specific and generic PROM scores are associated with early revision knee arthroplasty (defined as revision surgery performed 6 to 24 months after the primary procedure)? (2) Is a clinically important improvement in PROM scores (based on thresholds for the minimal important change) after primary knee arthroplasty associated with a lower risk of early revision? METHODS: Preoperative and 6-month postoperative PROM scores for patients undergoing primary knee arthroplasty were sourced from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) and Arthroplasty Clinical Outcomes Registry National. Between January 2013 and December 2020, PROM data were available for 19,402 primary total knee arthroplasties; these data were linked to AOANJRR data on revision knee arthroplasty. Of these, 3448 procedures were excluded because they did not have 6-month PROM data, they had not reached the 6-month postoperative point, they had died before 24 months, or they had received revision knee arthroplasty before the 6-month PROMs assessment. After these exclusions, data were analyzed for 15,954 primary knee arthroplasties. Associations between knee-specific (knee pain, Oxford Knee Score, and 12-item Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score [KOOS-12]) or generic PROM scores (5-level EuroQol quality of life instrument [EQ-5D], EQ VAS, perceived change, and satisfaction) and revision surgery were explored using t-tests, chi-square tests, and regression models. Ninety-four revision procedures were performed at 6 to 24 months, most commonly for infection (39% [37 procedures]). The early revision group was younger than the unrevised group (mean age 64 years versus 68 years) and a between-group difference in American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade was noted. Apart from a small difference in preoperative low back pain for the early revision group (mean low back pain VAS 4.2 points for the early revision group versus 3.3 points for the unrevised group), there were no between-group differences in preoperative knee-specific or generic PROM scores on univariate analysis. As the inclusion of ASA grade or low back pain score did not alter the model results, the final multivariable model included only the most clinically plausible confounders (age and gender) as covariates. Multivariable models (adjusting for age and gender) were also used to examine the association between a clinically important improvement in PROM scores (based on published thresholds for minimal important change) and the likelihood of early revision. RESULTS: After adjusting for age and gender, poor postoperative knee pain, Oxford, KOOS-12, EQ-5D, and EQ VAS scores were all associated with early revision. A one-unit increase (worsening) in knee pain at 6 months was associated with a 31% increase in the likelihood of revision (RR 1.31 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19 to 1.43]; p < 0.001). Reflecting the reversed scoring direction, a one-unit increase (improvement) in Oxford or KOOS-12 score was associated with a 9% and 5% reduction in revision risk, respectively (RR for Oxford: 0.91 [95% CI 0.90 to 0.93]; p < 0.001; RR for KOOS-12 summary: 0.95 [95% CI 0.94 to 0.97]; p < 0.001). Patient dissatisfaction (RR 6.8 [95% CI 3.7 to 12.3]) and patient-perceived worsening (RR 11.7 [95% CI 7.4 to 18.5]) at 6 months were also associated with an increased likelihood of early revision. After adjusting for age and gender, patients who did not achieve a clinically important improvement in PROM scores had a higher risk of early revision (RR 2.9 for the knee pain VAS, RR 4.2 for the Oxford Knee Score, RR 6.3 to 8.6 for KOOS-12, and RR 2.3 for EQ-5D) compared with those who did (reference group). CONCLUSION: Knee-specific and generic PROM scores offer an efficient approach to identifying patients at greater risk of early revision surgery, using either the 6-month score or the magnitude of improvement. These data indicate that surgeons can use single- and multi-item measures to detect a patient-perceived unsuccessful surgical outcome at 6 months after primary knee arthroplasty. Surgeons should be alert to poor PROM scores at 6 months or small improvements in scores (for example, less than 2 points for knee pain VAS or less than 10.5 points for Oxford Knee Score), which signal a need for direct patient follow-up or expedited clinical review. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Reduced Revision Rates in Total Shoulder Arthroplasty With Crosslinked Polyethylene: Results From the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry.

BACKGROUND: Loss of glenoid fixation is a key factor affecting the survivorship of primary total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). It is not known whether the lower revision rates associated with crosslinked polyethylene (XLPE) compared with those of non-XLPE identified in hip and knee arthroplasty apply to shoulder arthroplasty. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We used data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) to compare the revision rates of primary stemmed anatomic TSA using XLPE to procedures using non-XLPE. In patients receiving a primary stemmed anatomic TSA for osteoarthritis, we asked: (1) Does the rate of revision or reason for revision vary between XLPE and non-XLPE all-polyethylene glenoid components? (2) Is there any difference in the revision rate when XLPE is compared with non-XLPE across varying head sizes? (3) Is there any difference in survival among prosthesis combinations with all-polyethylene glenoid components when they are used with XLPE compared with non-XLPE? METHODS: Data were extracted from the AOANJRR from April 16, 2004, to December 31, 2020. The AOANJRR collects data on more than 97% of joint replacements performed in Australia. The study population included all primary, stemmed, anatomic TSA procedures performed for osteoarthritis using all-polyethylene glenoid components. Procedures were grouped into XLPE and non-XLPE bearing surfaces for comparison. Of the 10,102 primary stemmed anatomic TSAs in the analysis, 39% (3942 of 10,102) used XLPE and 61% (6160 of 10,102) used non-XLPE. There were no differences in age, gender, or follow-up between groups. Revision rates were determined using Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship to describe the time to the first revision, with censoring at the time of death or closure of the database at the time of analysis. Revision was defined as removal, replacement, or addition of any component of a joint replacement. The unadjusted cumulative percent revision after the primary arthroplasty (with 95% confidence intervals [CIs]) was calculated and compared using Cox proportional hazard models adjusted for age, gender, fixation, and surgeon volume. Further analyses were performed stratifying according to humeral head size, and a prosthesis-specific analysis adjusted for age and gender was also performed. This analysis was restricted to prosthesis combinations that were used at least 150 times, accounted for at least four revisions, had XLPE and non-XLPE options available, and had a minimum of 3 years of follow-up. RESULTS: Non - XLPE had a higher risk of revision than XLPE after 1.5 years (HR 2.3 [95% CI 1.6 to 3.1]; p < 0.001). The cumulative percent revision at 12 years was 5% (95% CI 4% to 6%) for XLPE and 9% (95% CI 8% to 10%) for non-XLPE. There was no difference in the rate of revision for head sizes smaller than 44 mm. Non-XLPE had a higher rate of revision than XLPE for head sizes 44 to 50 mm after 2 years (HR 2.3 [95% CI 1.5 to 3.6]; p < 0.001) and for heads larger than 50 mm for the entire period (HR 2.2 [95% CI 1.4 to 3.6]; p < 0.001). Two prosthesis combinations fulfilled the inclusion criteria for the prosthesis-specific analysis. One had a higher risk of revision when used with non-XLPE compared with XLPE after 1.5 years (HR 3.7 [95% CI 2.2 to 6.3]; p < 0.001). For the second prosthesis combination, no difference was found in the rate of revision between the two groups. CONCLUSION: These AOANJRR data demonstrate that noncrosslinked, all-polyethylene glenoid components have a higher revision rate compared with crosslinked, all-polyethylene glenoid components when used in stemmed anatomic TSA for osteoarthritis. As polyethylene type is likely an important determinant of revision risk, crosslinked polyethylene should be used when available, particularly for head sizes larger than 44 mm. Further studies will need to be undertaken after larger numbers of shoulder arthroplasties have been performed to determine whether this reduction in revision risk associated with XLPE bears true for all TSA designs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Revision for Aseptic Loosening of Highly Porous Acetabular Components in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty: An Analysis of 20,993 Total Hip Replacements.

BACKGROUND: Highly porous-coated titanium acetabular components have a high coefficient of friction and ultraporous surfaces to enhance bone ingrowth and osseointegration in total hip arthroplasty (THA). There have been concerns with the development of early radiolucent lines and aseptic loosening of highly porous acetabular components. It is unclear whether these concerns relate to a specific implant or the entire class. The aim of this study is to compare the revision rates for aseptic loosening of highly porous acetabular combinations in primary THA using data from a large joint replacement registry. METHODS: Data were retrieved from the Australian Orthopedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry for the study period September 1999 to December 2019. All primary THA procedures recorded and performed for osteoarthritis using the most common combinations for each highly porous acetabular component with highly cross-linked polyethylene and a 32-mm or 36-mm femoral head were included. The primary outcome measure was revision for aseptic loosening of the acetabular component. Results were adjusted for patient age and gender. RESULTS: There were 20,993 primary THA procedures performed for osteoarthritis using a highly porous acetabular component across 6 combinations. Relative to the POLARSTEM/R3 (StikTite), the Exeter V40/Tritanium had a significantly higher risk of revision for aseptic loosening of the acetabular component (hazard ratio 0.21, 95% confidence interval 0.06-0.74, P = .014). There was no difference between any other highly porous acetabular component combination and no late revisions for aseptic loosening. CONCLUSION: Highly porous-coated titanium acetabular components have low rates of aseptic loosening with long-term follow-up. A difference between components may exist. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Effect of Aspirin vs Enoxaparin on Symptomatic Venous Thromboembolism in Patients Undergoing Hip or Knee Arthroplasty: The CRISTAL Randomized Trial.

Importance: There remains a lack of randomized trials investigating aspirin monotherapy for symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis following total hip arthroplasty (THA) or total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Objective: To determine whether aspirin was noninferior to enoxaparin in preventing symptomatic VTE after THA or TKA. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cluster-randomized, crossover, registry-nested trial across 31 hospitals in Australia. Clusters were hospitals performing greater than 250 THA or TKA procedures annually. Patients (aged ≥18 years) undergoing hip or knee arthroplasty procedures were enrolled at each hospital. Patients receiving preoperative anticoagulation or who had a medical contraindication to either study drug were excluded. A total of 9711 eligible patients were enrolled (5675 in the aspirin group and 4036 in the enoxaparin group) between April 20, 2019, and December 18, 2020. Final follow-up occurred on August 14, 2021. Interventions: Hospitals were randomized to administer aspirin (100 mg/d) or enoxaparin (40 mg/d) for 35 days after THA and for 14 days after TKA. Crossover occurred after the patient enrollment target had been met for the first group. All 31 hospitals were initially randomized and 16 crossed over prior to trial cessation. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was symptomatic VTE within 90 days, including pulmonary embolism and deep venous thrombosis (DVT) (above or below the knee). The noninferiority margin was 1%. Six secondary outcomes are reported, including death and major bleeding within 90 days. Analyses were performed by randomization group. Results: Enrollment was stopped after an interim analysis determined the stopping rule was met, with 9711 patients (median age, 68 years; 56.8% female) of the prespecified 15 562 enrolled (62%). Of these, 9203 (95%) completed the trial. Within 90 days of surgery, symptomatic VTE occurred in 256 patients, including pulmonary embolism (79 cases), above-knee DVT (18 cases), and below-knee DVT (174 cases). The symptomatic VTE rate in the aspirin group was 3.45% and in the enoxaparin group was 1.82% (estimated difference, 1.97%; 95% CI, 0.54%-3.41%). This failed to meet the criterion for noninferiority for aspirin and was significantly superior for enoxaparin (P = .007). Of 6 secondary outcomes, none were significantly better in the enoxaparin group compared with the aspirin group. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients undergoing hip or knee arthroplasty for osteoarthritis, aspirin compared with enoxaparin resulted in a significantly higher rate of symptomatic VTE within 90 days, defined as below- or above-knee DVT or pulmonary embolism. These findings may be informed by a cost-effectiveness analysis. Trial Registration: ANZCTR Identifier: ACTRN12618001879257.

Impact of patient and prosthesis characteristics on common reasons for total knee replacement revision: a registry study of 36,626 revision cases from Australia, Sweden, and USA.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Total knee replacement (TKR) studies usually analyze all-cause revision when considering relationships with patient and prosthesis factors. We studied how these factors impact different revision diagnoses. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We used data from 2003 to 2019 of TKR for osteoarthritis from the arthroplasty registries of Sweden, Australia, and Kaiser Permanente, USA to study patient and prosthesis characteristics for specific revision diagnoses. There were 1,072,924 primary TKR included and 36,626 were revised. Factors studied included age, sex, prosthesis constraint, fixation method, bearing mobility, polyethylene type, and patellar component use. Revision diagnoses were arthrofibrosis, fracture, infection, instability, loosening, pain, patellar reasons, and wear. Odds ratios (ORs) for revision were estimated and summary effects were calculated using a meta-analytic approach. RESULTS: We found between-registry consistency in 15 factor/reason analyses. Risk factors for revision for arthrofibrosis were age < 65 years (OR 2.0; 95% CI 1.4-2.7) and mobile bearing designs (MB) (OR 1.7; CI 1.1-2.5), for fracture were female sex (OR 3.2; CI 2.2-4.8), age ≥ 65 years (OR 2.8; CI 1.9-4) and posterior stabilized prostheses (PS) (OR 2.1; CI 1.3-3.5), for infection were male sex (OR 1.9; CI 1.7-2.0) and PS (OR 1.5; CI 1.2-1.8), for instability were age < 65 years (OR 1.5; CI 1.3-1.8) and MB (OR 1.5; CI 1.1-2.2), for loosening were PS (OR 1.5; CI 1.4-1.6), MB (OR 2.2; CI 1.6-3.0) and use of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (OR 2.3; CI 1.8-2.9), for patellar reasons were not resurfacing the patella (OR 13.6; CI 2.1-87.2) and MB (OR 2.0; CI 1.2-3.3) and for wear was cementless fixation (OR 4.9; CI 4.3-5.5). INTERPRETATION: Patients could be counselled regarding specific age and sex risks. Use of minimally stabilized, fixed bearing, cemented prostheses, and patellar components is encouraged to minimize revision risk.

The effect of patient and prosthesis factors on revision rates after total knee replacement using a multi-registry meta-analytic approach.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Characteristics of patients receiving total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and prostheses used vary between regions and change with time. How these practice variations influence revision remains unclear. We combined registry data for better understanding of the impact of variation, which could potentially improve revision rates. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We used data from 2003 to 2019 for primary TKA from arthroplasty registries of Sweden (SKAR), Australia (AOANJRR), and Kaiser Permanente (KPJRR). We included 1,072,924 TKA procedures for osteoarthritis. Factors studied included age, sex, ASA class, BMI category, prosthesis constraint, fixation, bearing mobility, patellar resurfacing, and polyethylene type. Cumulative percentage revision (CPR) was calculated using Kaplan-Meier estimates, and unadjusted Cox hazard ratios were used for comparisons. Random-effects generic inverse-variance meta-analytic methods were used to determine summary effects. RESULTS: We found similarities in age and sex, but between-registry differences occurred in the other 7 factors studied. Patients from Sweden had lower BMI and ASA scores compared with other registries. Use of cement fixation was similar in the SKAR and KPJRR, but there were marked differences in patellar resurfacing and posterior stabilized component use. Meta-analysis results regarding survivorship favored patients aged ≥ 65 years and minimally stabilized components. There were inconsistent results with time for sex, fixation, and bearing mobility, and no differences for the patellar resurfacing or polyethylene type comparisons. INTERPRETATION: Marked practice variation was found. Use of minimally stabilized and possibly also cemented and fixed bearing prostheses is supported.

A Comparison of Revision Rates for Osteoarthritis of Primary Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty to Primary Anatomic Shoulder Arthroplasty with a Cemented All-polyethylene Glenoid: Analysis from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry.

BACKGROUND: There has been decreased use of anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) because reverse TSA (rTSA) is increasingly being used for the same indications. Although short-term studies generally have not found survivorship differences between these implant designs, these studies are often small and their follow-up is limited to the short term. Likewise, the degree to which patient characteristics (such as gender, age, and American Society of Anesthesiologists [ASA] score) may or may not be associated with survivorship differences calls for larger and longer-term studies than is often possible in single-center designs. Large national registry studies may be able to help answer these questions. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: By analyzing a large Australian registry series of primary aTSAs with cemented all-polyethylene glenoids and rTSA for osteoarthritis (OA), we asked: (1) Is the revision risk for OA higher for aTSA with all-polyethylene glenoids or for rTSA, adjusting for patient characteristics such as age, gender, ASA score, and BMI? (2) Is the patient's gender associated with differences in the revision risk after controlling for the potentially confounding factors of age, ASA score, and BMI? METHODS: In this comparative, observational registry study performed between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2019, all primary aTSAs with all-polyethylene glenoids and rTSA for OA as determined by the treating surgeon and reported to our national registry formed two groups for analysis. The study period was set to time-match for the collection of ASA score and BMI in 2012 and 2015, respectively. Our registry enrolls more than 97% of all shoulder arthroplasties undertaken in Australia. There were 29,294 primary shoulder arthroplasties; 1592 hemiarthroplasties, 1876 resurfacing and stemless shoulders, 269 stemmed, and 11,674 reverse shoulder arthroplasties were excluded for other diagnoses. A total of 1210 metal-backed glenoids in stemmed aTSA for OA were excluded. A total of 3795 primary aTSAs with all-polyethylene glenoids and 8878 primary rTSAs for OA were compared. An aTSA with an all-polyethylene glenoid and rTSA were more likely to be performed in women (56% and 61% of patients, respectively). The mean age was 69 ± 8 years for aTSA with all-polyethylene glenoids and 74 ± 8 years for rTSA. One aTSA for OA was performed in a patient with an unknown glenoid type. The ASA score (n = 12,438) and BMI (n = 11,233) were also recorded. The maximum follow-up was 5 years for both groups, and the mean follow-up was 2.6 ± 1.4 years for aTSA with all-polyethylene glenoids and 2.1 ± 1.4 years for rTSA. The endpoint was time to revision (all causes), and the cumulative percent revision was determined using Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship (time to revision) and HRs from Cox proportional hazard models that were adjusted for age, gender, ASA score, and BMI category. RESULTS: Overall, there were no differences in the 4-year cumulative percent revision between the groups; the 4-year cumulative percent revision was 3.5% for aTSA with all-polyethylene glenoids (95% CI 2.9%-4.2%) and 3.0% for rTSA (95% CI 2.6%-3.5%). There was an increased risk of revision of rTSA compared with aTSA using all-polyethylene glenoids in the first 3 months (HR 2.17 [95% CI 1.25-3.70]; p = 0.006, adjusted for age, gender, ASA score, and BMI). After that time, there was no difference in the rate of revision, with the same adjustments. In the first 3 months, men undergoing rTSA had a higher rate of revision than men with aTSA using all-polyethylene glenoids (HR 4.0 [95% CI 1.72-9.09]; p = 0.001, adjusted for age, BMI, and ASA). There was no difference between men in the two groups after that time. Women with aTSA using all-polyethylene glenoids were at a greater risk of revision than women with rTSA from 3 months onward (HR 2.77 [95% CI 1.55-4.92]; p < 0.001, adjusted for age, BMI, and ASA), with no difference before that time. CONCLUSION: Given the absence of survivorship differences at 4 years between rTSA and aTSA, but in light of the differences in the revision risk between men and women, surgeons might select an aTSA with an all-polyethylene glenoid to treat OA, despite the current popularity of rTSA. However, there are survivorship differences between genders. Future studies should evaluate whether our comparative findings are replicated in men and women undergoing aTSA with all-polyethylene glenoids and rTSA for primary diagnoses such as rheumatoid arthritis or post-traumatic arthritis, and whether there are functional differences between the two implant designs when used for OA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

What Is the Effect of Using a Competing-risks Estimator when Predicting Survivorship After Joint Arthroplasty: A Comparison of Approaches to Survivorship Estimation in a Large Registry.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing interest in the development of statistical models that can be used to estimate risk of adverse patient outcomes after joint arthroplasty. Competing risk approaches have been recommended to estimate risk of longer-term revision, which is often likely to be precluded by the competing risk of death. However, a common approach is to ignore the competing risk by treating death as a censoring event and using standard survival models such as Cox regression. It is well-known that this approach can overestimate the event risk for population-level estimates, but the impact on the estimation of a patient's individualized risk after joint arthroplasty has not been explored. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We performed this study to (1) determine whether using a competing risk or noncompeting risk method affects the accuracy of predictive models for joint arthroplasty revision and (2) determine the magnitude of difference that using a competing risks versus noncompeting risks approach will make to predicted risks for individual patients. METHODS: The predictive performance of a standard Cox model, with competing risks treated as censoring events, was compared with the performance of two competing risks approaches, the cause-specific Cox model and Fine-Gray model. Models were trained and tested using data pertaining to 531,304 TKAs and 274,618 THAs recorded in the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry between January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2017. The registry is a large database with near-complete capture and follow-up of all hip and knee joint arthroplasty in Australia from 2003 onwards, making it an ideal setting for this study. The performance of the three modeling approaches was compared in two different prediction settings: prediction of the 10-year risk of all-cause revision after TKA and prediction of revision for periprosthetic fracture after THA. The calibration and discrimination of each approach were compared using the concordance index, integrated Brier scores, and calibration plots. Calibration of 10-year risk estimates was further assessed within subgroups of age by comparing the observed and predicted proportion of events. Estimated 10-year risks from each model were also compared in three hypothetical patients with different risk profiles to determine whether differences in population-level performance metrics would translate into a meaningful difference for individual patient predictions. RESULTS: The standard Cox and two competing risks models showed near-identical ability to distinguish between high-risk and low-risk patients (c-index 0.64 [95% CI, 0.64 to 0.64] for all three modeling approaches for TKAs and 0.66 [95% CI 0.66 to 0.66] for THA). All models performed similarly in patients younger than 75 years, but for patients aged 75 years and older, the standard Cox model overestimated the risk of revision more than the cause-specific Cox and Fine-Gray model did. These results were echoed when predictions were made for hypothetical individual patients. For patients with a low competing risk of mortality, the 10-year predicted risks from the standard Cox, cause-specific Cox, and Fine-Gray models were similar for TKAs and THAs. However, a larger difference was observed for hypothetical 89-year-old patients with increased mortality risk. In TKAs, the revision risk for an 89-year-old patient was so low that this difference was negligible (0.83% from the cause-specific Cox model versus 1.1% from the standard Cox model). However, for THAs, where older age is a risk factor for both death and revision for periprosthetic fracture, a larger difference was observed in the 10-year predicted risks for a hypothetical 89-year-old patient (3.4% from the cause-specific Cox model versus 5.2% from the standard Cox model). CONCLUSION: When developing models to predict longer-term revision of joint arthroplasty, failing to use a competing risks modeling approach will result in overestimating the revision risk for patients with a high risk of mortality during the surveillance period. However, even in an extreme instance, where both the frequency of the event of interest and the competing risk of death are high, the largest absolute difference in predicted 10-year risk for an individual patient was just 1.8%, which may not be of consequence to an individual. Despite these findings, when developing or using risk prediction models, researchers and clinicians should be aware of how competing risks were handled in the modeling process, particularly if the model is intended for use populations where the mortality risk is high. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Does a Prescription-based Comorbidity Index Correlate with the American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Score and Mortality After Joint Arthroplasty? A Registry Study.

BACKGROUND: When analyzing the outcomes of joint arthroplasty, an important factor to consider is patient comorbidities. The presence of multiple comorbidities has been associated with longer hospital stays, more postoperative complications, and increased mortality. The American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status classification system score is a measure of a patient's overall health and has been shown to be associated with complications and mortality after joint arthroplasty. The Rx-Risk score is another measure for determining the number of different health conditions for which an individual is treated, with a possible score ranging from 0 to 47. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: For patients undergoing THA or TKA, we asked: (1) Which metric, the Rx-Risk score or the ASA score, correlates more closely with 30- and 90-day mortality after TKA or THA? (2) Is the Rx-Risk score correlated with the ASA score? METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) database linked to two other national databases, the National Death Index (NDI) database and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS), a dispensing database. Linkage to the NDI provided outcome information on patient death, including the fact of and date of death. Linkage to the PBS was performed to obtain records of all medicines dispensed to patients undergoing a joint replacement procedure. Patients were included if they had undergone either a THA (119,076 patients, 131,336 procedures) or TKA (182,445 patients, 215,712 procedures) with a primary diagnosis of osteoarthritis, performed between 2013 and 2017. We excluded patients with missing ASA information (THA: 3% [3055 of 119,076]; TKA: 2% [4095 of 182,445]). This left 127,761 primary THA procedures performed in 116,021 patients (53% [68,037 of 127,761] were women, mean age 68 ± 11 years) and 210,501 TKA procedures performed in 178,350 patients (56% [117,337 of 210,501] were women, mean age 68 ± 9 years) included in this study. Logistic regression models were used to determine the concordance of the ASA and Rx-Risk scores and 30-day and 90-day postoperative mortality. The Spearman correlation coefficient (r) was used to estimate the correlation between the ASA score and Rx-Risk score. All analyses were performed separately for THAs and TKAs. RESULTS: We found both the ASA and Rx-Risk scores had high concordance with 30-day mortality after THA (ASA: c-statistic 0.83 [95% CI 0.79 to 0.86]; Rx-Risk: c-statistic 0.82 [95% CI 0.79 to 0.86]) and TKA (ASA: c-statistic 0.73 [95% CI 0.69 to 0.78]; Rx-Risk: c-statistic 0.74 [95% CI 0.70 to 0.79]). Although both scores were strongly associated with death, their correlation was moderate for patients undergoing THA (r = 0.45) and weak for TKA (r = 0.38). However, the median Rx-Risk score did increase with increasing ASA score. For example, for THAs, the median Rx-Risk score was 1, 3, 5, and 7 for ASA scores 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. For TKAs, the median Rx-Risk score was 2, 4, 5, and 7 for ASA scores 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. CONCLUSION: The ASA physical status and RxRisk were associated with 30-day and 90-day mortality; however, the scores were only weakly to moderately correlated with each other. This suggests that although both scores capture a similar level of patient illness, each score may be capturing different aspects of health. The Rx-Risk may be used as a complementary measure to the ASA score. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Association between circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations and hip replacement for osteoarthritis: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: To examine the association between circulating 25(OH)D concentrations and incidence of total hip replacement for osteoarthritis in a prospective cohort study. METHODS: This study examined a random sample of 2651 participants in the Melbourne Collaborative Cohort Study who had 25(OH)D concentrations measured from dried blood spots collected in 1990-1994. Participants who underwent total hip replacement for osteoarthritis between January 2001 and December 2018 were identified by linking the cohort records to the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. Cox proportional hazard regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of total hip replacement for osteoarthritis in relation to 25(OH)D concentrations, adjusted for confounders. RESULTS: Eighty-six men and eighty-seven women had a total hip replacement for osteoarthritis. Compared with men in the lowest (1st) quartile of 25(OH)D concentration, the HR for total hip replacement was 2.32 (95% CI 1.05, 5.13) for those in the 2nd quartile, 2.77 (95% CI 1.28, 6.00) for those in the 3rd quartile, and 1.73 (95% CI 0.75, 4.02) for those in the highest quartile of 25(OH)D concentrations (p for trend 0.02). There was little evidence of an association in women. CONCLUSIONS: Higher circulating 25(OH)D concentrations were associated with an increased risk of total hip replacement for osteoarthritis in men but not in women. Although the underlying mechanism warrants further investigation, our findings highlight the need to determine the optimal levels of circulating 25(OH)D to reduce the risk of hip osteoarthritis.

A Comparison of Revision Rates for Dislocation and Aseptic Causes Between Dual Mobility and Large Femoral Head Bearings in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty With Subanalysis by Acetabular Component Size: An Analysis of 106,163 Primary Total Hip Arthroplasties.

BACKGROUND: Dual mobility (DM) and large femoral head bearings (≥36 mm) both decrease the risk of dislocation in total hip arthroplasty (THA). There is limited comparable data in primary THA. This study compared the revision rates for dislocation and aseptic causes between DM and large femoral heads and subanalyzed by acetabular component size. METHODS: Data from the Australian Orthopedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry were analyzed for patients undergoing primary THA for osteoarthritis from January 2008 (the year of first recorded DM use) to December 2019. All DM and large femoral head bearings were identified. The primary outcome measure was the cumulative percent revision (CPR) for dislocation and for all aseptic causes. The results were adjusted by age, sex, and femoral fixation. A subanalysis was performed stratifying acetabular component diameter <58 m and ≥58 mm. RESULTS: There were 4942 DM and 101,221 large femoral head bearings recorded. There was no difference in the CPR for dislocation (HR = 0.69 (95% CI 0.42, 1.13), P = .138) or aseptic causes (HR = 0.91 (95% CI 0.70, 1.18), P = .457). When stratified by acetabular component size, DM reduced the CPR for dislocation in acetabular component diameter <58 mm (HR = 0.55 (95% CI 0.30, 1.00), P = .049). There was no difference for diameter ≥58 mm. There was no difference in aseptic revision when stratified by acetabular component diameter. CONCLUSION: There is no difference in revision rates for dislocation or aseptic causes between DM and large femoral heads in primary THA. When stratified by acetabular component size, DM reduces dislocation for acetabular component diameter <58 mm. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Hip Hemiarthroplasty for Fractured Neck of Femur Revised to Total Hip Arthroplasty: Outcomes Are Influenced by Patient Age Not Articulation Options.

BACKGROUND: Hip hemiarthroplasty is the most common arthroplasty option for fractured neck of femur (FNOF). Revision to total hip arthroplasty (THA) is occasionally required. This study aimed to assess the outcome of hemiarthroplasty revised to THA and to assess the impact of femoral head size, dual mobility (DM), and constrained liners. METHODS: All aseptic 1st revisions reported to the Australian Joint Replacement Registry after hemiarthroplasty performed for FNOF when a THA was used as the revision procedure were included from September 1999 to December 2019. The primary outcome measure was the cumulative percent revision for all-causes and dislocation. The impact of prosthesis factors on revision THA was assessed: standard head THA (≤32 mm), large head THA (≥36 mm), DM, and constrained liners. Outcomes were compared using Kaplan Meyer and competing risk. RESULTS: There were 96,861 hemiarthroplasties performed, with 985 revised to THA. The most common reasons for 1st revision were loosening (49.3%), fracture (17.7%), and dislocation (11.0%). Of the hemiarthroplasty procedures revised to THA, 76 had a 2nd revision. The most common reasons for 2nd revision were fracture (27.6%), dislocation (26.3%), loosening (23.7%), and infection (18.4%). Femoral head size, DM, or constrained liner use did not alter the incidence of all-cause 2nd revision. This did not change when solely looking at patients still alive. A 2nd revision was more likely in patients aged <75 years. CONCLUSION: The outcome of hemiarthroplasty performed for FNOF revised to THA is influenced by patient age, not by the articulation used.

Incidence, Risk Factors, and Outcome of Ceramic-On-Ceramic Bearing Breakage in Total Hip Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Ceramic-on-ceramic bearing breakage is a rare but significant complication of total hip arthroplasty. This study aimed to identify risk factors for breakage and to determine the outcome of different revision options. METHODS: All ceramic-on-ceramic primary total hip arthroplasty procedures reported to the Australian Joint Replacement Registry from September 1999 to December 2019 were included. Procedures were subdivided into alumina or mixed ceramic (alumina/zirconia). All breakages were identified. The association between ceramic type and head size was assessed. Subsequent revision rates were compared and cause of revision assessed. RESULTS: There were 23,534 alumina and 71,144 mixed ceramic procedures. Breakage was the reason for 1st revision in 84 alumina (5.27% of all revisions and 0.36% of procedures) and 56 mixed ceramic procedures (2.46% of all revisions; 0.08% of procedures). Alumina had a higher breakage rate than mixed ceramic (HR 2.50 (95% CI 1.75, 3.59), P < .001), and breakage was higher for 36-38mm head sizes using alumina (HR 2.84 (1.52, 5.31), P = .001). 17.8% of 2nd revisions occur by 3 years, due to dislocation, infection, metal-related pathology, and loosening. A neck adapter sleeve did not reduce 2nd revisions. Numbers were too low to compare revision bearing surface options. CONCLUSION: Ceramic breakage has reduced with mixed ceramics but has a 0.79/1000 incidence at 15-year follow-up. It is unclear what the risk factors are for modern ceramics with increasing head size a risk for alumina only. Risk of 2nd revision is high and occurs early. The optimal revision option is unknown.