A comparison of revision rates for stemmed and stemless primary anatomic shoulder arthroplasty with all-polyethylene glenoid components: analysis from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry.

BACKGROUND: We compared the rate of all-cause revision of 2 classes of primary anatomic shoulder arthroplasty, stemmed (stTSA) and stemless (slTSA), undertaken with cemented all-polyethylene glenoid components. METHODS: A large national arthroplasty registry identified 2 cohort groups for comparison, stTSA and l undertaken for all diagnoses between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2021. A subanalysis from January 1, 2017, allowed capturing of additional patient demographics including American Society of Anesthesiologists score, body mass index, and glenoid morphology. The cumulative percent revision (CPR) was determined using Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship and hazard ratios (HR) from Cox proportional hazard models adjusted for age and gender. RESULTS: Of the 7995 stTSA procedures, the CPR at 9 years was 5.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.0, 6.4), and for 3156 slTSA procedures, the CPR was 4.4% (95% CI: 3.6, 5.5). There was no significant difference in the rate of revision between the study groups (HR = 0.76 [95% CI: 0.51, 1.14], P = .189, adjusted for age, gender, humeral head size, humeral fixation, bearing surface, glenoid design, and mean surgeon volume [MSV]). There was an increased rate of revision for stTSA and slTSA undertaken with humeral head sizes <44 mm (stTSA <44 mm vs. 44-50 mm, HR = 1.56 [CI: 1.18, 2.08], P = .001; slTSA <44 mm vs. 44-50 mm, HR = 2.08 [CI: 1.32, 3.33], P = .001). MSV as a continuous predictor was not a revision risk to stTSA vs. slTSA, but categorically, a low MSV (<10 stTSA + slTSA cases per annum) was associated with a higher revision rate for stTSA (10-20 cases/yr vs. <10 cases/yr, HR = 0.72 [CI: 0.55, 0.95], P = .019) but was not in slTSA. Revision rates were increased for stTSA with non-crosslinked polyethylene (XLPE) glenoids vs. XPLE after 2 years (HR = 2.20 [CI: 1.57, 3.08], P < .001) but did not significantly differ for slTSA. Metal/XPLE (humeral/glenoid) bearing surface of stTSA rate of revision was not different from each combination of slTSA bearing surface. Instability/dislocation was a revision risk for slTSA vs. stTSA (HR = 1.93 [CI: 1.28, 2.91], P = .001), but from 2017, neither of American Society of Anesthesiologists score, body mass index, and glenoid morphology changed the rate of revision. CONCLUSIONS: Revision rates of stTSA and slTSA did not significantly differ and were associated with humeral head size but not patient characteristics. Surgeon inexperience of anatomic shoulder arthroplasty and non-XLPE glenoids were risk factors for stTSA revision but not slTSA. The metal/XLPE stTSA rate of revision was not found to differ significantly from slTSA regardless of polyethylene or humeral head bearing type. Revision for instability/dislocation was more common for slTSA.

Primary inlay reverse shoulder arthroplasty has a higher rate of revision than onlay reverse shoulder arthroplasty: Analysis from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry.

Background: Two classes of primary reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA), inlay (in-rTSA), and onlay (on-rTSA) were compared to determine differences in rates of revision. Methods: Between 1 January 2012 and 31 December 2020, all primary in-rTSA or on-rTSA procedures were compared from a large national arthroplasty registry by cumulative percentage revision (CPR). Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship and hazard ratios from Cox proportional hazard models adjusted for age, gender, glenosphere size, and humeral fixation determined any associations to the risk of revision. Results: Of the 14,807 in-rTSA and 6590 on-rTSA procedures, the CPR at seven years was 4.9%. There was an increased risk of revision for in-rTSA vs on-rTSA (p = 0.039) when adjusted for age, gender, glenosphere size, and humeral fixation. Glenosphere size <38 mm adjusted for age and gender (p = 0.016) increased the revision risk. Revision for instability/dislocation occurred more often for in-rTSA vs on-rTSA (p < 0.001) in the first three months. Males had a higher rate of revision than females for in-rTSA (3months+, p = 0.001) and for on-rTSA (p < 0.001). Discussion: Care should be taken when considering in-rTSA particularly in males, and if preoperative planning suggests a small (<38 mm) glenosphere. Level of evidence: Level III, therapeutic study. Original article.

Does hospital setting influence shoulder replacement revision rate? A national comparison of outcomes between private and public settings.

BACKGROUND: Australian healthcare relies on both private and public sectors to meet the demand for surgical care. Rapid growth of shoulder replacement surgery highlights a disparity in service provision, with two-thirds occurring privately. This study aimed to assess the influence of hospital setting on shoulder replacement revision rate at a national level. METHODS: All primary shoulder replacements recorded by the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry from April 2004 to December 2020 were included. Private and public settings were compared for stemmed total shoulder replacement (sTSR) for osteoarthritis (OA), reverse total shoulder replacement (rTSR) for OA/cuff arthropathy (CA), and rTSR for fracture. The primary outcome was cumulative percent revision (CPR), with Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship to determine differences between private and public hospitals, recorded as hazard ratios (HR). Secondary analyses investigated differences between hospital settings, targeting hospital outliers for revision and prosthesis selection. RESULTS: Primary sTSR (OA) demonstrated a higher revision rate in private hospitals compared to public hospitals (HR = 1.27; P = 0.001), as did rTSR (OA/CA) after 3 months (HR = 1.33; P = 0.003). However, no significant difference was observed for primary rTSR (fracture) (HR = 1.10; P = 0.484). Restricting rTSR (OA/CA) to the best performing prosthesis combinations eliminated the difference between private and public outcomes (HR 1.10; P = 0.415). No other secondary analysis altered the primary result. CONCLUSIONS: Differences exist between private and public hospitals for revision rate following primary shoulder replacement. Prosthesis selection accounts for some of the variation. Further analysis into patient specific characteristics is necessary to better understand these disparities.

Do the Revision Rates of Arthroplasty Surgeons Correlate With Postoperative Patient-reported Outcome Measure Scores? A Study From the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are a pragmatic and efficient means to evaluate the functional quality of arthroplasty beyond revision rates, which are used by most joint replacement registries to judge success. The relationship between these two measures of quality-revision rates and PROMs-is unknown, and not every procedure with a poor functional result is revised. It is logical-although still untested-that higher cumulative revision rates correlate inversely with PROMs for individual surgeons; more revisions are associated with lower PROM scores. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We used data from a large national joint replacement registry to ask: (1) Does a surgeon's early THA cumulative percent revision (CPR) rate and (2) early TKA CPR rate correlate with the postoperative PROMs of patients undergoing primary THA and TKA, respectively, who have not undergone revision? METHODS: Elective primary THA and TKA procedures in patients with a primary diagnosis of osteoarthritis that were performed between August 2018 and December 2020 and registered in the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry PROMs program were eligible. THAs and TKAs were eligible for inclusion in the primary analysis if 6-month postoperative PROMs were available, the operating surgeon was clearly identified, and the surgeon had performed at least 50 primary THAs or TKAs. Based on the inclusion criteria, 17,668 THAs were performed at eligible sites. We excluded 8878 procedures that were not matched to the PROMs program, leaving 8790 procedures. A further 790 were excluded because they were performed by unknown or ineligible surgeons or were revised, leaving 8000 procedures performed by 235 eligible surgeons, including 4256 (53%; 3744 cases of missing data) patients who had postoperative Oxford Hip Scores and 4242 (53%; 3758 cases of missing data) patients who had a postoperative EQ-VAS score recorded. Complete covariate data were available for 3939 procedures for the Oxford Hip Score and for 3941 procedures for the EQ-VAS. A total of 26,624 TKAs were performed at eligible sites. We excluded 12,685 procedures that were not matched to the PROMs program, leaving 13,939 procedures. A further 920 were excluded because they were performed by unknown or ineligible surgeons, or because they were revisions, leaving 13,019 procedures performed by 276 eligible surgeons, including 6730 (52%; 6289 cases of missing data) patients who had had postoperative Oxford Knee Scores and 6728 (52%; 6291 cases of missing data) patients who had a postoperative EQ-VAS score recorded. Complete covariate data were available for 6228 procedures for the Oxford Knee Score and for 6241 procedures for the EQ-VAS. The Spearman correlation between the operating surgeon's 2-year CPR and 6-month postoperative EQ-VAS Health and Oxford Hip or Oxford Knee Score was evaluated for THA and TKA procedures where a revision had not been performed. Associations between postoperative Oxford and EQ-VAS scores and a surgeon's 2-year CPR were estimated based on multivariate Tobit regressions and a cumulative link model with a probit link, adjusting for patient age, gender, ASA score, BMI category, preoperative PROMs, as well as surgical approach for THA. Missing data were accounted for using multiple imputation, with models assuming they were missing at random and a worst-case scenario. RESULTS: Of the eligible THA procedures, postoperative Oxford Hip Score and surgeon 2-year CPR were correlated so weakly as to be clinically irrelevant (Spearman correlation ρ = -0.09; p < 0.001), and the correlation with postoperative EQ-VAS was close to zero (ρ = -0.02; p = 0.25). Of the eligible TKA procedures, postoperative Oxford Knee Score and EQ-VAS and surgeon 2-year CPR were correlated so weakly as to be clinically irrelevant (ρ = -0.04; p = 0.004 and ρ = 0.03; p = 0.006, respectively). All models accounting for missing data found the same result. CONCLUSION: A surgeon's 2-year CPR did not exhibit a clinically relevant correlation with PROMs after THA or TKA, and all surgeons had similar postoperative Oxford scores. PROMs, revision rates, or both may be inaccurate or imperfect indicators of successful arthroplasty. Missing data may limit the findings of this study, although the results were consistent under a variety of different missing data scenarios. Innumerable factors contribute to arthroplasty results, including patient-related variables, differences in implant design, and the technical quality of the procedure. PROMs and revision rates may be analyzing two different facets of function after arthroplasty. Although surgeon variables are associated with revision rates, patient factors may exert a stronger influence on functional outcomes. Future research should identify variables that correlate with functional outcome. Additionally, given the gross level of function that Oxford scores record, outcome measures that can identify clinically meaningful functional differences are required. The use of Oxford scores in national arthroplasty registries may rightfully be questioned. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Is the Revision Rate for Femoral Neck Fracture Lower for Total Hip Arthroplasty Than for Hemiarthroplasty?: A Comparison of Registry Data for Contemporary Surgical Options.

BACKGROUND: When arthroplasty is indicated for a femoral neck fracture (FNF), it is unclear whether total hip arthroplasty (THA) or hemiarthroplasty (HA) is best. This study compares data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry using contemporary surgical options. METHODS: Patients from 60 to 85 years old who were treated with arthroplasty for FNF, between September 1999 and December 2019, were included if the femoral stems were cemented. Only THAs with femoral heads of ≥36 mm or dual-mobility articulations were included. Patients who had monoblock HA were excluded. Rates of revision for all aseptic failures and dislocation were compared. Competing risks of revision and death were considered using the cumulative incidence function. Subdistribution hazard ratios (HRs) for revision or death from a Fine-Gray regression model were used to compare THA and HA. Interactions of procedure with age group and sex were considered. Secondary analysis adjusting for body mass index (BMI) and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification was also considered. RESULTS: There were 4,551 THA and 29,714 HA procedures included. The rate of revision for THA was lower for women from 60 to 69 years old (HR = 0.58 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.39 to 0.85]) and from 70 to 74 years old (HR = 0.65 [95% CI, 0.43 to 0.98]) compared with HA. However, women from 80 to 85 years old (HR = 1.56 [95% CI, 1.03 to 2.35]) and men from 75 to 79 years old (HR = 1.61 [95% CI, 1.05 to 2.46]) and 80 to 85 years old (HR = 2.73 [95% CI, 1.89 to 3.95]) had an increased rate of revision when THA was undertaken compared with HA. There was no difference in the rate of revision for dislocation between THA and HA for either sex or age categories. CONCLUSIONS: When contemporary surgical options for FNF are used, there is a benefit with respect to revision outcomes for THA in women who are <75 years old and a benefit for HA in women who are ≥80 years old and men who are ≥75 years old. There is no difference in dislocation rates. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.