Mortality and re-revision following single-stage and two-stage revision surgery for the management of infected primary hip arthroplasty in England and Wales.

We compared the risks of re-revision and mortality between two-stage and single-stage revision surgeries among patients with infected primary hip arthroplasty. Patients with a periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of their primary arthroplasty revised with single-stage or two-stage procedure in England and Wales between 2003 and 2014 were identified from the National Joint Registry. We used Poisson regression with restricted cubic splines to compute hazard ratios (HRs) at different postoperative periods. The total number of revisions and re-revisions undergone by patients was compared between the two strategies. In total, 535 primary hip arthroplasties were revised with single-stage procedure (1,525 person-years) and 1,605 with two-stage procedure (5,885 person-years). All-cause re-revision was higher following single-stage revision, especially in the first three months (HR at 3 months = 1.98 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.14 to 3.43), p = 0.009). The risks were comparable thereafter. Re-revision for PJI was higher in the first three postoperative months for single-stage revision and waned with time (HR at 3 months = 1.81 (95% CI 1.22 to 2.68), p = 0.003; HR at 6 months = 1.25 (95% CI 0.71 to 2.21), p = 0.441; HR at 12 months = 0.94 (95% CI 0.54 to 1.63), p = 0.819). Patients initially managed with a single-stage revision received fewer revision operations (mean 1.3 (SD 0.7) vs 2.2 (SD 0.6), p < 0.001). Mortality rates were comparable between these two procedures (29/10,000 person-years vs 33/10,000). The risk of unplanned re-revision was lower following two-stage revision, but only in the early postoperative period. The lower overall number of revision procedures associated with a single-stage revision strategy and the equivalent mortality rates to two-stage revision are reassuring. With appropriate counselling, single-stage revision is a viable option for the treatment of hip PJI.

International Registries: U.K. National Joint Registry, Nordic Registries, and Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR).

ABSTRACT: National-level joint arthroplasty registries were among the first large orthopaedic surgery databases and represent some of the longest-running and most influential big databases in our profession. Nordic registries were among the first registries and were followed by excellent registries in the United Kingdom and Australia. In this article, we describe each of these registries and highlight the data elements collected, the data points that can be obtained by linking the national arthroplasty registries to other national registries or databases, the completeness of data, and the strengths and weaknesses of each database. Each of these registries publishes an annual report that is available online, and each also can do more detailed analysis of certain aspects of its data for special studies.When evaluating and interpreting data from national joint registries, the user should be aware that, despite the power of huge numbers, there remain numerous limitations to the observational data. Strong selection biases exist with regard to which patients are chosen for which procedure. Surgeons of different skill levels may use one technique or implant differentially compared with another. The end points that registries collect differ widely: for example, some report only hip dislocations leading to revision rather than all dislocations. Registries in countries in which there are long wait times for revision surgery may report artificially low revision rates compared with countries in which revision surgery is more easily accessible. Despite these limitations, registries have the merit of reporting the actual results of huge numbers of surgical procedures performed across the spectrum of hospitals, surgeons, and patients, making the data extremely powerful for identifying trends, identifying early signs of problems related to certain implants or implant classes, and identifying associations between variables that can be further studied to determine if the effect is causal.

Proximal femoral replacement in non-neoplastic revision hip arthroplasty : five-year results.

AIMS: With increasing burden of revision hip arthroplasty (THA), one of the major challenges is the management of proximal femoral bone loss associated with previous multiple surgeries. Proximal femoral arthroplasty (PFA) has already been popularized for tumour surgeries. Our aim was to describe the outcome of using PFA in these demanding non-neoplastic cases. METHODS: A retrospective review of 25 patients who underwent PFA for non-neoplastic indications between January 2009 and December 2015 was undertaken. Their clinical and radiological outcome, complication rates, and survival were recorded. All patients had the Stanmore Implant - Modular Endo-prosthetic Tumour System (METS). RESULTS: At mean follow-up of 5.9 years, there were no periprosthetic fractures. Clearance of infection was achieved in 63.6% of cases. One hip was re-revised to pseudo arthroplasty for deep infection. Instability was noted in eight of the hips (32%), of which seven needed further surgery. Out of these eight hips with instability, five had preoperative infection. Deep infection was noted in five of the hips (20%), of which four were primarily revised for infection. One patient had aseptic loosening of the femoral component and awaits revision surgery. The Kaplan-Meier survivorship free of revision of any component for any reason was 72% (95% confidence interval (CI) 51.3% to 92.7%), and for revisions of only femoral component for any reason was 96% (95% CI 86.3% to 105.7%) at five years. CONCLUSION: Dislocation and infection remain the major cause for failure, particularly in patients with pre-existing infection. The use of dual mobility cups, silver-coated implants, and less aggressive postoperative rehabilitation regimens would possibly aid in the reduction of complications. PFA performed in patients with periprosthetic fracture seem to fair better. This study supports the judicious use of PFA in non-oncological revision hip arthroplasties, and that they be performed by experienced revision arthroplasty surgeons. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(3):229-235.

Metal allergy in primary and revision total knee arthroplasty : a scoping review and evidence-based practical approach.

AIMS: Metal allergy in knee arthroplasty patients is a controversial topic. We aimed to conduct a scoping review to clarify the management of metal allergy in primary and revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA). METHODS: Studies were identified by searching electronic databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid MEDLINE, and Embase, from their inception to November 2020, for studies evaluating TKA patients with metal hypersensitivity/allergy. All studies reporting on diagnosing or managing metal hypersensitivity in TKA were included. Data were extracted and summarized based on study design, study population, interventions and outcomes. A practical guide is then formulated based on the available evidence. RESULTS: We included 38 heterogeneous studies (two randomized controlled trials, six comparative studies, 19 case series, and 11 case reports). The evidence indicates that metal hypersensitivity is a rare complication with some histopathological features leading to pain and dissatisfaction with no reliable screening tests preoperatively. Hypoallergenic implants are viable alternatives for patients with self-reported/confirmed metal hypersensitivity if declared preoperatively; however, concerns remain over their long-term outcomes with ceramic implants outperforming titanium nitride-coated implants and informed consent is paramount. For patients presenting with painful TKA, metal hypersensitivity is a diagnosis of exclusion where patch skin testing, lymphocyte transformation test, and synovial biopsies are useful adjuncts before revision surgery is undertaken to hypoallergenic implants with shared decision-making and informed consent. CONCLUSION: Using the limited available evidence in the literature, we provide a practical approach to metal hypersensitivity in TKA patients. Future national/registry-based studies are needed to identify the scale of metal hypersensitivity, agreed diagnostic criteria, and management strategies. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(10):785-795.

Overview of Randomized Controlled Trials in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty (34,020 Patients): What Have We Learnt?

AIM: To provide an overview of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in primary total hip arthroplasty summarizing the available high-quality evidence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines (PRISMA), we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2020, Issue 1), Ovid MEDLINE, and Embase. We excluded nonrandomized trials, trials on neck of femur fractures or revision surgery, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. Trials that met our inclusion criteria were assessed using a binary outcome measure of whether they reported statistically significant findings. These were then classified according to the intervention groups (surgical approach, fixation, and component design use, among others). RESULTS: Three hundred twelve RCTs met the inclusion criteria and were included. The total number of patients in those 312 RCTs was 34,020. Sixty-one RCTs (19.5%) reported significant differences between the intervention and the control groups. The trials were grouped into surgical approach 72, fixation 7, cement 16, femoral stem 46, head sizes 5, cup design 18, polyethylene 25, bearing surfaces 30, metal-on-metal 30, resurfacing 20, navigation 15, robotics 3, surgical technique 12, and closure/drains/postoperative care 13 RCTs. DISCUSSION: The evidence reviewed indicates that for the vast majority of patients, a standard conventional total hip arthroplasty with a surgical approach familiar to the surgeon using standard well-established components and highly cross-linked polyethylene leads to satisfactory clinical outcomes. This evidence also offers arthroplasty surgeons the flexibility to use the standard and cost-effective techniques and achieve comparable outcomes.

Fractured Femoral Stems in Primary and Revision Hip Arthroplasties Revisited: Wrightington Experience.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to present our experience in managing fractured femoral stems over the last 10 years for both primary and revision stems at our tertiary unit focusing on modes of failure and operative techniques. METHODS: This is a retrospective consecutive study of all patients with fractured femoral stems that were operatively managed in our unit between 2008 and 2018. Detailed radiographic evaluation (Paprosky classification) was undertaken and data collected on operative techniques used to extract distal fractured stem fragments. RESULTS: Thirty-five patients (35 hips) were included (25 men/10 women) with average age at time of presentation of 68 years (range, 29-93). Average body mass index was 30 (standard deviation, 3.8; range, 22.5-39). There were variety of stems both contemporary and historical, primary and revision cases (15 hips polished tapered cemented stems, 10 hips composite beam and miscellaneous stems, and 10 revision hip stems). The predominant mechanism of failure was fatigue due to cantilever bending in distally fixed stems. Surgical techniques used to extract distal fragment were drilling technique in 2 hips, cortical window in 13 hips, extended trochanteric osteotomy (ETO) in 5 hips, and proximal extraction in 15 hips. CONCLUSION: When faced with a contemporary fractured stem, drilling techniques into the distal fragment are unlikely to succeed. If a trochanteric osteotomy had been used at time of index surgery, this could be used again to aid proximal extraction with conventional revision instrumentations. The cortical window technique is useful but surgically demanding technique that is most successful in extracting polished tapered fractured stems particularly when an ETO is not planned for femoral reconstruction. Use of trephines can be useful for removal of longer, uncemented stems. Finally, an ETO might be necessary when other techniques have failed.

Early results of a high friction surface coated uncemented socket in revision hip arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Revision hip arthroplasty with high friction trabecular metal sockets has resulted in good medium-term results. Many manufacturers have therefore introduced higher friction coatings to their implants to meet a growing demand for similar implants. The Pinnacle Gription was introduced in 2007 as an evolution of the standard Pinnacle socket. This study aimed to assess the early results of this socket in a revision setting. METHODS: Between August 2009 and December 2016, the Gription socket was used in 146 revision hip replacements. The mean age was 63 (19-88) years. Defects were classified as Paprosky Grade 2 in 71(2A [28], 2B [19], 2C [24]) and grade 3 in 20 (3A [18], 3B [2]). Bearing combinations were ceramic-on-ceramic in 23, metal-on-polyethylene in 71, ceramic-on-polyethylene in 52. Screws were used in 112 cases, impaction bone grafting in 34 and metal augments in 1 case. Radiographs were analysed for progressive radiolucent lines and migration. RESULTS: Mean follow-up was 43.5 (range 25-62) months. There were 6 re-revisions (2 for deep infection, 2 for recurrent dislocation and 2 for aseptic loosening). None of the other cases had evidence of socket migration or progressive radiolucent lines. There were no intraoperative or postoperative periprosthetic fractures. The crude survivorship for all-cause failure was 95.8% and the survivorship for aseptic loosening was 98.6%. at 43.5 months follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest reported series of Gription socket use in revision arthroplasty and demonstrates encouraging early results. We therefore advocate the continued cautious use of this implant.

Impact of hip arthroplasty registers on orthopaedic practice and perspectives for the future.

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) registers are established in several countries to collect data aiming to improve the results after THA. Monitoring of adverse outcomes after THA has focused mainly on revision surgery, but patient-reported outcomes have also been investigated.Several surgery-related factors influencing the survival of the THA have been thoroughly investigated and have changed clinical practice. These factors include surgical approach, specific implants, the size of the components, type of fixation and different bone cements.Register data have been used to examine the risk of venous thromboembolism and bleeding after THA. These investigations have resulted in shorter duration of thromboprophylaxis and a reduced frequency of blood transfusion.Registers may provide specific information to surgeons on the outcome of all THAs that they have performed with a detailed analysis of revisions rates and reasons for the revisions.A number of other stakeholders can use register data to provide benchmarks. The National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man supplies data to the Orthopaedic Device Evaluation Panel (ODEP), which provides benchmarks at 3, 5, 7, 10, and 13 years graded from A*, A, B and C.Future perspectives: National registers have to play a major role in documenting the quality of THA in order to describe best practice and report implant outliers. The registers have to be used for research and post-market surveillance and register data may be a source for intelligent decision tools. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2019;4 DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.4.180091.

Orthopaedic registries - the UK view (National Joint Registry): impact on practice.

The National Joint Registry (NJR) was established in 2002 as the result of an unexpectedly high failure rate of a cemented total hip replacement.Initial compliance with the Registry was low until data entry was mandated. Current case ascertainment is approximately 95% for primary procedures and 90% for revision procedures.The NJR links to other data sources to enrich the reporting processes. The NJR provides several web-based and open-access reports to the public and detailed confidential performance reports to individual surgeons, hospitals and industry bodies.A transparency and accountability process ensures that device and surgical performance are actively monitored on a six-monthly basis, and adverse variation is dealt with in an appropriate way that underpins patient safety.The NJR also manages a comprehensive research-ready database and data protection compliant access system that enables external researchers to use the dataset and perform independent analyses for patient benefit.Moving forwards, the NJR intends to look at factors that lead to better outcomes so that good practice can be embedded into routine care. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2019;4 DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.4.180084.

Assessing the non-inferiority of prosthesis constructs used in hip replacement using data from the National Joint Registry of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man: a benchmarking study.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the relative performance of hip prosthesis constructs as compared with the best performing prosthesis constructs and illustrate the substantial variability in performance of currently used prostheses. DESIGN: A non-inferiority study. SETTING: The National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man (NJR). PARTICIPANTS: All patients with a primary total hip replacement registered in the NJR between 1 April 2003 and 31 December 2016. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Kaplan-Meier failure function for hip prosthesis constructs. Failure difference between best performing construct and remaining constructs. METHODS: Using a non-inferiority analysis, the performance of hip prosthesis constructs by brand were compared with the best performing contemporary construct. Construct failure was estimated using the 1-Kaplan-Meier survival function method, that is, an estimate of net failure. The difference in failure between the contemporary benchmark and all other constructs was tested. RESULTS: Of the 4442 constructs used, only 134 had ≥500 procedures at risk at 3 years postprimary, 89 of which were not demonstrated to be inferior to the benchmark by at least 100% relative risk. By 10 years postprimary, there were 26 constructs with ≥500 at risk, 13 of which were not demonstrated to be inferior by at least 20% relative risk.Even fewer constructs were not inferior to the benchmark when analysed by age and gender. At 5 years postprimary, there were 15 constructs in males and 11 in females, aged 55-75 years, not shown to be inferior. CONCLUSIONS: There is great variability in construct performance and the majority of constructs have not been demonstrated to be non-inferior to contemporary benchmarks. These results can help to inform patients, clinicians and commissioners when considering hip replacement surgery.

Assessing the non-inferiority of prosthesis constructs used in total and unicondylar knee replacements using data from the National Joint Registry of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man: a benchmarking study.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the relative performance of knee replacement constructs compared with the best performing construct and illustrate the substantial variability in performance. DESIGN: A non-inferiority study. SETTING: England and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: All primary total and unicondylar knee replacements performed and registered in the National Joint Registry between 1 April 2003 and 31 December 2016. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Kaplan-Meier failure function for knee replacement constructs. Failure difference between best performing construct (the benchmark) and other constructs. METHODS: Using a non-inferiority analysis, the performance of knee replacement constructs by brand were compared with the best performing construct. Construct failure was estimated using the 1-Kaplan Meier method, that is, an estimate of net failure. The difference in failure between the contemporary benchmark construct and all other constructs were tested. RESULTS: Of the 449 different knee replacement constructs used, only 27 had ≥500 procedures at risk at 10 years postprimary, 18 of which were classified as inferior to the benchmark by at least 20% relative risk of failure. Two of these 18 were unicondylar constructs that were inferior by at least 100% relative risk. In men, aged 55-75 years, 12 of 27 (44%) constructs were inferior by at least 20% to the benchmark at 7 years postprimary. In women, aged 55-75 years, 8 of 32 (25%) constructs were inferior at 7 years postprimary. Very few constructs were classified as non-inferior to the contemporary benchmark. CONCLUSIONS: There are few knee replacement constructs that can be shown to be non-inferior to a contemporary benchmark. Unicondylar knee constructs have, almost universally, at least 100% worse revision outcomes compared with the best performing total knee replacement. These results will help to inform patients, clinicians and commissioners when considering knee replacement surgery.

Risk factors associated with revision for prosthetic joint infection following knee replacement: an observational cohort study from England and Wales.

BACKGROUND: Prosthetic joint infection is a devastating complication of knee replacement. The risk of developing a prosthetic joint infection is affected by patient, surgical, and health-care system factors. Existing evidence is limited by heterogeneity in populations studied, short follow-up, inadequate power, and does not differentiate early prosthetic joint infection, most likely related to the intervention, from late infection, more likely to occur due to haematogenous bacterial spread. We aimed to assess the overall and time-specific associations of these factors with the risk of revision due to prosthetic joint infection following primary knee replacement. METHODS: In this cohort study, we analysed primary knee replacements done between 2003 and 2013 in England and Wales and the procedures subsequently revised for prosthetic joint infection between 2003 and 2014. Data were obtained from the National Joint Registry linked to the Hospital Episode Statistics data in England and the Patient Episode Database for Wales. Each primary replacement was followed for a minimum of 12 months until the end of the observation period (Dec 31, 2014) or until the date of revision for prosthetic joint infection, revision for another indication, or death (whichever occurred first). We analysed the data using Poisson and piecewise exponential multilevel models to assess the associations between patient, surgical, and health-care system factors and risk of revision for prosthetic joint infection. FINDINGS: Of 679 010 primary knee replacements done between 2003 and 2013 in England and Wales, 3659 were subsequently revised for an indication of prosthetic joint infection between 2003 and 2014, after a median follow-up of 4·6 years (IQR 2·6-6·9). Male sex (rate ratio [RR] for male vs female patients 1·8 [95% CI 1·7-2·0]), younger age (RR for age ≥80 years vs <60 years 0·5 [0·4-0·6]), higher American Society of Anaesthesiologists [ASA] grade (RR for ASA grade 3-5 vs 1, 1·8 [1·6-2·1]), elevated body-mass index (BMI; RR for BMI ≥30 kg/m2vs <25 kg/m2 1·5 [1·3-1·6]), chronic pulmonary disease (RR 1·2 [1·1-1·3]), diabetes (RR 1·4 [1·2-1·5]), liver disease (RR 2·2 [1·6-2·9]), connective tissue and rheumatic diseases (RR 1·5 [1·3-1·7]), peripheral vascular disease (RR 1·4 [1·1-1·7]), surgery for trauma (RR 1·9 [1·4-2·6]), previous septic arthritis (RR 4·9 [2·7-7·6]) or inflammatory arthropathy (RR 1·4 [1·2-1·7]), operation under general anaesthesia (RR 1·1 [1·0-1·2]), requirement for tibial bone graft (RR 2·0 [1·3-2·7]), use of posterior stabilised fixed bearing prostheses (RR for posterior stabilised fixed bearing prostheses vs unconstrained fixed bearing prostheses 1·4 [1·3-1·5]) or constrained condylar prostheses (3·5 [2·5-4·7]) were associated with a higher risk of revision for prosthetic joint infection. However, uncemented total, patellofemoral, or unicondylar knee replacement (RR for uncemented vs cemented total knee replacement 0·7 [95% CI 0·6-0·8], RR for patellofemoral vs cemented total knee replacement 0·3 [0·2-0·5], and RR for unicondylar vs cemented total knee replacement 0·5 [0·5-0·6]) were associated with lower risk of revision for prosthetic joint infection. Most of these factors had time-specific effects, depending on the time period post-surgery. INTERPRETATION: We have identified several risk factors for revision for prosthetic joint infection following knee replacement. Some of these factors are modifiable, and the use of targeted interventions or strategies could lead to a reduced risk of revision for prosthetic joint infection. Non-modifiable factors and the time-specific nature of the effects we have observed will allow clinicians to appropriately counsel patients preoperatively and tailor follow-up regimens. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research.

Is patient satisfaction related to patient reported sounds from ceramic on ceramic total hip arthroplasty? A study of 265 hips.

INTRODUCTION: The ideal method and implant to perform total hip arthroplasty (THA) is still a debated topic. Ceramic on ceramic (CoC) bearings have favourable wear properties, but squeaking has been reported as an unwanted side effect. We aimed to determine the rate of noise generation from CoC hips and investigate whether there is a relationship with patient satisfaction. METHODS: A total of 246 consecutive CoC bearing uncemented THA were retrospectively identified in a single institution. Post-operatively patients were sent a postal questionnaire to evaluate their reported sounds and satisfaction with their THA. Uni- and multi-variate analyses were performed to identify potential predictor variables for reported post-operative sounds. RESULTS: Questionnaires were returned by 172 patients (70% return rate). 24% reported sounds from their hips with 11% reporting a squeak. Median satisfaction levels were minimally, but significantly less for "noisy" (9/10) than "quiet" hips (10/10) (median difference = - 1, 95% CI - 2 to 0, p < 0.001). Compared to those with "noisy" hips, patients with "quiet" hips were 1.7 times (95% CI 1.3-2.5, p = 0.0002) more likely to report a "forgotten" hip. Younger age (p < 0.043) and increased anteversion (p < 0.021) were predictors for reported sounds. CONCLUSION: We have identified a high rate of "noisy" hips in this series of CoC THA with a significant inverse relationship between "noisy" hips and patient satisfaction levels. In our unit, we are moving towards the use of ceramic on cross-linked polyethylene bearings as a result of these findings and the excellent survivorship of this bearing combination.

Does oversizing an uncemented cup increase post-operative pain in primary total hip arthroplasty?

INTRODUCTION: It has been suggested that one of the factors related to persistent post-operative pain following total hip arthroplasty (THA) is to over sizing of the acetabular component. In order to investigate this potential issue, we retrospectively analysed a series of consecutive uncemented THA. We assessed the incidence of persistent post-operative pain and the size difference between the implanted acetabular component and the native femoral head. METHODS: A total of 265 consecutive THAs were retrospectively identified. Standardised pre-operative radiographs were analysed using validated techniques to determine the native femoral head diameter. Post-operative standardised radiographs were reviewed and the acetabular orientation determined. Patients were sent postal questionnaires regarding their outcome and level of pain. RESULTS: Questionnaires were returned by 169 patients (189 hips, 71% response rate). A total of 17 were excluded due to inadequate radiographs., leaving 172 THA in the study group. The mean native femoral head (NFH) size was 47 mm. The most common implanted acetabular component size was 52 mm. The mean difference in cup to NFH diameter (delta) was 5.7 mm (range - 6.1 to 15.4 mm; 95% CI 5.3-6.2 mm). A delta of > 6 mm was found to be significant for predicting persistent post-operative pain (RR = 1.81; 95% CI 1.1-3.1; P = 0.027). CONCLUSION: Our study confirms that a delta of > 6 mm is associated with an increased risk of persistent post-operative pain following THA. We recommend pre-operative templating in all uncemented THA to ensure the planned acetabular component is no more than 6 mm larger than the NFH diameter.

Outcomes of Cement in Cement Revision, in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: The cement-in-cement femoral revision technique involves removing a femoral component from a well-fixed femoral cement mantle and cementing a new stem into the original mantle. This technique, when carried out for the correct indications, is fast, relatively inexpensive and carries a reduced short-term risk for the patient compared with conventional way of removing well-fixed cement. AIM: To analyze the effectiveness of cement in cement revision of the femoral stem while performing a revision Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA). METHODS: We analyzed a consecutive series of 79 patients who underwent a cement in cement revision THA between June-2015 to June-2018. All the patients were retrospectively analysed for operative time, complications, clinical and radiological outcomes. RESULTS: Average age was 76 years (49-86). The mean follow-up was 16.2 months (12-45). The average operative time was 184.6 (90-290) minutes. Most common indication was cup loosening in 28 patients (42.4%), dislocation in 14 patients (21.2%) and stem loosening in 12 patients (18.2%) Nine patients (11%) had one or more complications. Pre-operatively, 10 patients (13%) had lucency at the cement bone interface. Recent review has shown that 8 of these patients' radiographs have remained unchanged, and in 2 of them there is a slight progression of lucency. Common post op clinical complaintswere persistent pain and abductor weakness. Five (6.3%) patients required a re-revision. Most of the patients had a good or satisfactory outcome.No stems showed radiological loosening. CONCLUSION: The cement-in-cement technique for revision of the femoral component gave promising results and had the advantages of speed, less blood or bone stock loss, less risk of femoral perforation or fracture, decreased financial costs and reduced post op morbidity.

Hip replacement.

Total hip replacement is a frequently done and highly successful surgical intervention. The procedure is undertaken to relieve pain and improve function in individuals with advanced arthritis of the hip joint. Symptomatic osteoarthritis is the most common indication for surgery. In paper 1 of this Series, we focus on how patient factors should inform the surgical decision-making process. Substantial demands are placed upon modern implants, because patients expect to remain active for longer. We discuss the advances made in implant performance and the developments in perioperative practice that have reduced complications. Assessment of surgery outcomes should include patient-reported outcome measures and implant survival rates that are based on data from joint replacement registries. The high-profile failure of some widely used metal-on-metal prostheses has shown the shortcomings of the existing regulatory framework. We consider how proposed changes to the regulatory framework could influence safety.

The risk of developing cancer following metal-on-metal hip replacement compared with non metal-on-metal hip bearings: Findings from a prospective national registry "The National Joint Registry of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man".

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Over 1 million metal-on-metal hip replacements were implanted. Even well-functioning implants produce wear debris that can cause tissue damage, disseminate and cause DNA damage. We aimed to establish if there was an association between metal-on-metal hip replacement and the risk of subsequently developing cancer compared with alternative hip replacements. METHODS: We performed a population based prospective longitudinal cohort study using data from the National Joint Registry linked to Hospital Episode Statistics (n = 403,881 patients). We examined the incidence of a new diagnosis of cancer in patients who received a metal-on-metal bearing in comparison with those who received a non metal-on-metal bearing. Kaplan-Meier estimates of time to first cancer diagnosis were used with Cox proportional hazards regression models to assess the effect on the time to cancer diagnosis for all cancer types, haematological, malignant melanoma, urinary tract cancers or prostate cancer in men. RESULTS: The maximum follow up available was 11.8 years with 25% of patients followed up for more than 6.8 years (mean follow up 4.6 years; median 4.3; IQR 2.1-6.8; range 0.01-11.8). Analyses by gender that adjusted for age at primary and presence or absence of linked Welsh (PEDW) records showed no increase in the risk of developing cancer according to the bearing surface implanted for all cancers, haematological cancers, malignant melanoma, urinary tract cancers or prostate cancer in men. For patients receiving a second hip replacement, there was also no difference. CONCLUSION: We have demonstrated that there is currently no evidence of an increase in the risk of cancer following primary hip replacement according to the type of bearing material used. Although the risk of revision in metal-on-metal bearing hip replacements is higher, it is reassuring that the risk of a new diagnosis of cancer is not currently increased. Despite the long term follow up available in this study, the latency period for some cancers is very long and therefore continued monitoring is required to ensure no new patterns emerge that may indicate need for universal screening.

Risk factors associated with revision for prosthetic joint infection after hip replacement: a prospective observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The risk of prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is influenced by patient, surgical, and health-care factors. Existing evidence is based on short-term follow-up. It does not differentiate between factors associated with early onset caused by the primary intervention from those associated with later onset more likely to result from haematogenous spread. We aimed to assess the overall and time-specific associations of these factors with the risk of revision due to PJI after primary total hip replacement. METHODS: We did a prospective observational cohort study analysing 623 253 primary hip procedures performed between April 1, 2003, and Dec 31, 2013, in England and Wales and recorded the number of procedures revised because of PJI. We investigated the associations between risk factors and risk of revision for PJI across the overall follow-up period using Poisson multilevel models. We reinvestigated the associations by post-operative time periods (0-3 months, 3-6 months, 6-12 months, 12-24 months, >24 months) using piece-wise exponential multilevel models with period-specific effects. Data were obtained from the National Joint Registry linked to the Hospital Episode Statistics data. FINDINGS: 2705 primary procedures were subsequently revised for an indication of PJI between 2003 and 2014, after a median (IQR) follow up of 4·6 years (2·6-7·0). Among the factors associated with an increased revision due to PJI there were male sex (1462 [1·2‰] of 1 237 170 male-years vs 1243 [0·7‰] of 1 849 691 female-years; rate ratio [RR] 1·7 [95% CI 1·6-1·8]), younger age (739 [1·1‰] of 688 000 person-years <60 years vs 242 [0·6‰] of 387 049 person-years ≥80 years; 0·7 [0·6-0·8]), elevated body-mass index (BMI; 941 [1·8‰] 517 278 person-years with a BMI ≥30 kg/m2vs 272 [0·9‰] of 297 686 person-years with a BMI <25 kg/m2; 1·9 [1·7-2·2]), diabetes (245 [1·4‰] 178 381 person-years with diabetes vs 2120 [1·0‰] of 2 209 507 person-years without diabetes; 1·4 [1·2-1·5]), dementia (5 [10·1‰] of 497 person-years with dementia at 3 months vs 311 [2·6‰] of 120 850 person-years without dementia; 3·8 [1·2-7·8]), previous septic arthritis (22 [7·2‰] of 3055 person-years with previous infection vs 2683 [0·9‰] of 3 083 806 person-years without previous infection; 6·7 [4·2-9·8]), fractured neck of femur (66 [1·5‰] of 43 378 person-years operated for a fractured neck of femur vs 2639 [0·9‰] of 3 043 483 person-years without a fractured neck of femur; 1·8 [1·4-2·3]); and use of the lateral surgical approach (1334 [1·0‰] of 1 399 287 person-years for lateral vs 1242 [0·8 ‰] of 1 565 913 person-years for posterior; 1·3 [1·2-1·4]). Use of ceramic rather than metal bearings was associated with a decreased risk of revision for PJI (94 [0·4‰] of 239 512 person-years with ceramic-on-ceramic bearings vs 602 [0·5‰] of 1 114 239 peron-years with metal-on-polyethylene bearings at ≥24 months; RR 0·6 [0·4-0·7]; and 82 [0·4‰] of 190 884 person-years with ceramic-on-polyethyene bearings vs metal-on-polyethylene bearings at ≥24 months; 0·7 [0·5-0·9]). Most of these factors had time-specific effects. The risk of revision for PJI was marginally or not influenced by the grade of the operating surgeon, the absence of a consultant surgeon during surgey, and the volume of procedures performed by hospital or surgeon. INTERPRETATION: Several modifiable and non-modifiable factors are associated with the risk of revision for PJI after primary hip replacement. Identification of modifiable factors, use of targeted interventions, and beneficial modulation of some of these factors could be effective in reducing the incidence of PJI. It is important for clinicians to consider non-modifiable factors and factors that exhibit time-specific effects on the risk of PJI to counsel patients appropriately preoperatively. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research.

Implications of Introducing New Technology: Comparative Survivorship Modeling of Metal-on-Metal Hip Replacements and Contemporary Alternatives in the National Joint Registry.

BACKGROUND: New medical technologies are often used widely without adequate supporting data, a practice that can lead to widespread catastrophic failure such as occurred with metal-on-metal (MoM) hip replacements. We determined both how revision rates would have differed if, instead of receiving MoM hip replacements, patients had received existing alternatives and the subsequent cumulative re-revision rates of the patients who did receive MoM hip replacements compared with alternatives. METHODS: This study is a population-based longitudinal cohort study of patient data recorded in the National Joint Registry (NJR) for England, Wales and Northern Ireland between April 2003 and December 2014. We ascertained implant failure rates separately among stemmed MoM total hip replacement (THR) and hip-resurfacing procedures and, using flexible parametric survival modeling, compared them with the failure rates that would have been expected had existing alternatives been used. We used Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis to compare cumulative re-revision of patients who received stemmed MoM primary replacements that failed and of those who underwent hip resurfacing that failed with those whose non-MoM THRs had failed. RESULTS: In all, 37,555 patients underwent MoM hip resurfacing, with a 10-year revision rate of 12.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 12.2% to 13.1%) compared with a predicted revision rate of 4.8% if alternative implants had been used. The 32,024 stemmed MoM THRs had a 19.8% (95% CI: 18.9% to 20.8%) 10-year failure rate compared with an expected rate of 3.9% if alternatives had been used. For every 100 MoM hip-resurfacing procedures, there were 7.8 excess revisions by 10 years, and for every 100 stemmed MoM THR procedures, there were 15.9, which equates to 8,021 excess first revisions. Seven-year re-revision rates were 14.9% (95% CI: 13.8% to 16.2%) for stemmed non-MoM THRs, 18.0% (95% CI: 15.7% to 20.7%) for MoM hip resurfacing, and 19.8% (95% CI: 17.0% to 23.0%) for stemmed MoM THRs. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the consequences of widespread and poorly monitored adoption of a medical technology. Over 1 million MoM hip prostheses were implanted worldwide. The excess failure on a global scale will be enormous. This practice of adopting new technologies without adequate supporting data must not be repeated. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.