Risk factors for total ankle arthroplasty failure: A Dutch Arthroplasty Register study.

BACKGROUND: Studies concerning total ankle arthroplasty could be influenced by several forms of bias. Independent national arthroplasty registries represent objective data on survival and patient reported outcomes. The aim of this study was to determine survival and identify risk factors for early failure in a nationwide series of total ankle arthroplasties from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data of 810 patients, who received 836 total ankle arthroplasties between 2014 and 2020 were obtained from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI) with a median follow-up of 38 months (range 1-84 months). Survival was expressed in Kaplan-Meier analysis and associated hazard ratios for implant failure were determined. Implant failure was defined as the need for revision surgery for any reason or (pan)arthrodesis. RESULTS: During follow-up, we recorded 39 failures (4.7%) resulting in a implant survival of 95.3% with a median follow-up of 38 months (range 1-84 months). Medial malleolus osteotomy (HR = 2.27), previous surgery (HR = 1.83), previous osteotomy (HR = 2.82) and previous ligament reconstruction (HR = 2.83) all showed potentially clinically meaningful associations with a higher incidence of implant failure, yet only previous OCD treatment (HR = 6.21), BMI (HR = 1.09) and age (HR = 0.71) were statistically significant. INTERPRETATION: Excellent short-term survival (95.3%) with a median follow-up of 38 months was reported for TAA patients from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register. Patients with a lower age, a higher BMI or who had a prior surgical OCD treatment before TAA surgery appear to have a higher risk for revision after short-term clinical follow-up. Thorough patient selection with emphasis on risk factors associated with early implant failure might be essential to improve TAA survivorship.

Outcome of revised metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties: a Dutch arthroplasty register study.

BACKGROUND: Preliminary results of metal-on-metal (MoM) hip arthroplasty were satisfactory, but since 2004 data showed high failure rates. National joint replacement registries are multi-centre databases comprised of thousands of subjects and implants which allow for identifying variables predictive of implant failure. The aim of the current study was to estimate re-revision rates after revision of a primary MoM hip arthroplasty in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI) and to assess potential predictor variables of re-revision of these MoM hip arthroplasties. METHODS: Eligible procedures were those with a revision for any reason except infection, after an initial primary surgery with a hip resurfacing (HRA) or large-head MoM (LH-MoM) total hip arthroplasty (THA). The probability of re-revision for both types of MoM hip arthroplasty over time was estimated using the cumulative incidence function taking mortality as a competing risk into account. A proportional sub-distribution hazards regression model was used to assess potential predictor variables of re-revision of these MoM hip arthroplasties. RESULTS: A total of 3476 records of revised implants were included, of which 873 (25.2%) were MoM implants. Over the course of follow-up, 101 (11.5%) MoM implants were re-revised. During follow-up 36 (4.3%) patients who received a MoM-implant at primary arthroplasty and a revision afterwards had died. The regression model showed that for primary MoM implants a MoM articulation after revision (HR 2.48; 95% CI 1.53-4.03, p < 0.001), femoral-only revisions (HR 3.20; 95% CI 2.06-4.99, p < 0.001) and periprosthetic fractures (HR 1.98; 95% CI 1.03-3.82, p = 0.042) as reason for the first revision were statistically significant risk factors for re-revision. CONCLUSION: Both types of large-head MoM hip arthroplasties have shown high revision and re-revision rates; risk factors were identified. The outcome of this study can be helpful in managing expectations of patients and orthopaedic surgeons.