Comparison of the early postoperative outcomes of cementless and cemented medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

Aims: The primary objective of this registry-based study was to compare patient-reported outcomes of cementless and cemented medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) during the first postoperative year. The secondary objective was to assess one- and three-year implant survival of both fixation techniques. Methods: We analyzed 10,862 cementless and 7,917 cemented UKA cases enrolled in the Dutch Arthroplasty Registry, operated between 2017 and 2021. Pre- to postoperative change in outcomes at six and 12 months' follow-up were compared using mixed model analyses. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression models were applied to quantify differences in implant survival. Adjustments were made for patient-specific variables and annual hospital volume. Results: Change from baseline in the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and activity-related pain was comparable between groups. Adjustment for covariates demonstrated a minimally greater decrease in rest-related pain in the cemented group (ß = -0.09 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.16 to -0.01)). Cementless fixation was associated with a higher probability of achieving an excellent OKS outcome (> 41 points) (adjusted odds ratio 1.2 (95% CI 1.1 to 1.3)). The likelihood of one-year implant survival was greater for cemented implants (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 1.35 (95% CI 1.01 to 1.71)), with higher revision rates for periprosthetic fractures of cementless implants. During two to three years' follow-up, the likelihood of implant survival was non-significantly greater for cementless UKA (adjusted HR 0.64 (95% CI 0.40 to 1.04)), primarily due to increased revision rates for tibial loosening of cemented implants. Conclusion: Cementless and cemented medial UKA led to comparable improvement in physical function and pain reduction during the initial postoperative year, albeit with a greater likelihood of achieving excellent OKS outcomes after cementless UKA. Anticipated differences in early physical function and pain should not be a decisive factor in the choice of fixation technique. However, surgeons should consider the differences in short- and long-term implant survival when deciding which implant to use.

Smoking is associated with higher short-term risk of revision and mortality following primary hip or knee arthroplasty: a cohort study of 272,640 patients from the Dutch Arthroplasty Registry.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Patients actively smoking at the time of primary hip or knee arthroplasty are at increased risk of direct perioperative complications. We investigated the association between smoking status and risk of revision and mortality within 2 years following hip or knee arthroplasty. METHODS: We used prospectively collected data from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register. All primary total hip arthroplasties (THAs), total knee arthroplasties (TKAs), and unicondylar knee arthroplasties (UKAs) with > 2 years' follow-up were included (THA: n = 140,336; TKA: n = 117,497; UKA: n = 14,807). We performed multivariable Cox regression analyses to calculate hazard risks for differences between smokers and non-smokers, while adjusting for confounders (aHR). RESULTS: The smoking group had higher risk of revision (THA: aHR 1.3, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1-1.4 and TKA: aHR 1.4, CI 1.3-1.6) and risk of mortality (THA: aHR 1.4, CI 1.3-1.6 and TKA: aHR 1.4, CI 1.2-1.6). Following UKA, smokers had a higher risk of mortality (aHR 1.7, CI 1.0-2.8), but no differences in risk of revision were observed. The smoking group had a higher risk of revision for infection following TKA (aHR 1.3, CI 1.0-1.6), but not following THA (aHR 1.0, CI 0.8-1.2). CONCLUSION: This study showed that the risk of revision and mortality is higher for smokers than for non-smokers in the first 2 years following THA and TKA. Smoking could contribute to complications following primary hip or knee arthroplasty.

Total Knee Arthroplasty in the Post-Traumatic Knee: Revision Risks and Functional Outcomes Compared to Osteoarthritic Knees. A Report of Primary Procedures From the Dutch Arthroplasty Register.

BACKGROUND: Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) for post-traumatic arthritis (PTA) poses higher challenges and increased risks of complications compared to TKA for osteoarthritis (OA). This study aimed to compare implant survivorships, reasons for revision, and patient-reported outcome measures between OA and PTA as indications for TKA. METHODS: We selected all primary TKAs for PTA or OA between 2007 and 2020 from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (Landelijke Registratie Orthopedische Interventies). The study included 3,897 TKA procedures for PTA (median follow-up 4.6 years; interquartile range: 2.2, 7.3) and 255,259 procedures for OA (median follow-up 4.7 years; interquartile range 2.2, 7.6). A total of 10,480 revision procedures were performed across both groups (238 in PTA knees; 10,242 in OA knees). We analyzed the prevalence of preoperative comorbidities and postoperative complications, as well as the reasons for revision, and calculated the implant survival rates. RESULTS: The survival revision rate in the OA group was significantly lower at both follow-up moments (5- and 10- years). The likelihood for revision was increased in TKA for PTA compared to TKA for OA (hazards ratio: 1.16 [95% confidence interval 1.02 to 1.33], P = .03). The most common reason for a revision was instability and arthrofibrosis in the PTA group compared to patellar pain for the OA group. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated an increased risk for revision for any reason in TKA for PTA compared to OA. Revision for instability and arthrofibrosis were more prevalent in the PTA group, while revision for patellar pain was less prevalent compared to TKA for OA.

Validation of the Incidence of Reported Periprosthetic Joint Infections in Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register.

BACKGROUND: Arthroplasty registers underreport the incidence of periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs). We validated the incidence of reported PJIs in total hip arthroplasties (THAs) and total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI) using data from the Dutch National Nosocomial Surveillance Network (PREZIES). METHODS: All primary THAs and TKAs from the LROI and all primary THAs and TKAs performed in consenting hospitals from PREZIES between 2012 and 2018 were matched on date of birth, date of surgery, sex, hospital, and type of procedure (THA n = 91,208; TKA n = 80,304). Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated for PJIs registered in the LROI, using PREZIES as a reference. RESULTS: The incidence of registered PJIs in THAs was 1.2% in PREZIES and 0.5% in the LROI. For TKAs, this was 0.7 and 0.4%, respectively. The PJIs in THAs in the LROI had a sensitivity of 0.32 (confidence interval [CI]: 0.29 to 0.35), specificity of 1.00 (CI: 1.00 to 1.00), PPV of 0.74 (CI: 0.70 to 0.78), and NPV of 0.99 (CI: 0.99 to 0.99). In TKAs, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were 0.38 (CI: 0.34 to 0.42), 1.00 (CI: 1.00 to 1.00), 0.65 (CI: 0.59 to 0.70), and 1.00 (CI: 1.00 to 1.00), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The LROI captures approximately one-third of the PJIs as revision within one year for infection or resection arthroplasty. The capture rate of PJIs can be improved by including all reoperations without component exchange and nonsurgical treatments with antibiotics only.

Increased risk of aseptic loosening for posterior stabilized compared with posterior cruciate-retaining uncemented total knee replacements: a cohort study of 13,667 knees from the Dutch Arthroplasty Registry.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: While registry studies have suggested a higher risk of revision for posterior-stabilized (PS) compared with posterior cruciate-retaining (CR) total knee replacements (TKR) using cement, it is unknown whether this is also the case for uncemented TKR. We aimed to compare the revision rates of PS and CR designs in patients receiving primary uncemented TKR. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data from the Dutch arthroplasty register (LROI) was analyzed, comprising 12,226 uncemented primary CR TKRs and 750 uncemented PS TKRs registered between 2007 and 2022. Competing risk and multivariable Cox regression analyses were used to compare revision rates, risks of revision, and reasons for revision between groups. Sensitivity analyses were performed to analyze the risk, concerning the 5 most commonly used implants and performing hospitals for each group. RESULTS: Uncemented PS TKRs had higher 10-year revision rates for any reason and aseptic loosening (6.5%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.6-9.2 and 3.9%, CI 2.6-6.7) compared with uncemented CR TKRs (4.2%, CI 3.8-4.7 and 1.4%, CI 1.2-1.7). PS TKRs were 1.4 and 2.5 times more likely to be revised for any reason and aseptic loosening, respectively. These results remained consistent after adjustment for age, sex, BMI, previous surgeries, bearing mobility, and surface modification, with sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: We found that uncemented PS implants have a higher rate of revision than uncemented CR implants, mainly due to a higher risk of aseptic loosening.

Risk for re-revision and type of antibiotic-loaded bone cement in hip or knee arthroplasty revisions: report of the Dutch Arthroplasty Register.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: High-dose dual antibiotic-loaded bone cement (ALBC) may reduce the risk of revision after total hip and knee replacements. The aim of our study therefore was to determine the risk of re-revision following first time aseptic hip or knee revision using single versus dual ALBC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register treated from 2007 to 2018 with first time cemented aseptic hip (n = 2,529) or knee revisions (n = 7,124) were incorporated into 2 datasets. The primary endpoint of this observational cohort study was subsequent all-cause re-revision. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard and competing risk was analyzed for both groups. RESULTS: There was no difference in re-revision rate (any reason) with single versus dual ALBC (hazard ratio 1.06, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.83-1.35 for hip and 0.93, CI 0.80-1.07 for knee revisions). The 10-year crude cumulative re-revision rate also showed no differences for single versus dual ALBC use. The crude cumulative 7-year THA re-revision and 9-year TKA re-revision rates did not show any difference in implant survival for common cement types used. CONCLUSION: We could not confirm the potential benefit of using dual ALBC compared with single ALBC for aseptic hip and knee revisions.

Anterosuperior versus deltopectoral approach for primary reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.

Aims: The current evidence comparing the two most common approaches for reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA), the deltopectoral and anterosuperior approach, is limited. This study aims to compare the rate of loosening, instability, and implant survival between the two approaches for rTSA using data from the Dutch National Arthroplasty Registry with a minimum follow-up of five years. Methods: All patients in the registry who underwent a primary rTSA between January 2014 and December 2016 using an anterosuperior or deltopectoral approach were included, with a minimum follow-up of five years. Cox and logistic regression models were used to assess the association between the approach and the implant survival, instability, and glenoid loosening, independent of confounders. Results: In total, 3,902 rTSAs were included. A deltopectoral approach was used in 54% (2,099/3,902) and an anterosuperior approach in 46% (1,803/3,902). Overall, the mean age in the cohort was 75 years (50 to 96) and the most common indication for rTSA was cuff tear arthropathy (35%; n = 1,375), followed by osteoarthritis (29%; n = 1,126), acute fracture (13%; n = 517), post-traumatic sequelae (10%; n = 398), and an irreparable cuff rupture (5%; n = 199). The two high-volume centres performed the anterosuperior approach more often compared to the medium- and low-volume centres (p < 0.001). Of the 3,902 rTSAs, 187 were revised (5%), resulting in a five-year survival of 95.4% (95% confidence interval 94.7 to 96.0; 3,137 at risk). The most common reason for revision was a periprosthetic joint infection (35%; n = 65), followed by instability (25%; n = 46) and loosening (25%; n = 46). After correcting for relevant confounders, the revision rate for glenoid loosening, instability, and the overall implant survival did not differ significantly between the two approaches (p = 0.494, p = 0.826, and p = 0.101, respectively). Conclusion: The surgical approach used for rTSA did not influence the overall implant survival or the revision rate for instability or glenoid loosening.

No Association Between Hospital Volume and Early Second Revision Rate in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty in the Dutch Orthopaedic Register.

BACKGROUND: Revision knee arthroplasty (R-KA) is rising globally. Technical difficulty of R-KA varies from liner exchange to full revision. Centralization has been shown to reduce mortality and morbidity rates. The present study aimed to evaluate the association between hospital R-KA volume and overall second revision rate, as well as revision rate for different types of revision. METHODS: The R -KAs between 2010 and 2020 with available data on the primary KA in the Dutch Orthopaedic Arthroplasty Register were included. Minor revisions were excluded. Implant data and anonymous patient characteristics were obtained from the Dutch Orthopaedic Arthroplasty Register. Survival analyses and competing risk analysis were performed per volume category (≤12, 13 to 24, or ≥25 cases/year) at 1, 3, and 5 years following R-KA. There were 8,072 R-KA cases available. Median follow-up was 3.7 years (range 0 to 13.7 years). There were a total of 1,460 second revisions (18.1%) at the end of follow-up. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between second revision rates of the three volume groups. Adjusted hazard ratio for second revision were 0.97 (Confidence Interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.11) for hospitals with 13 to 24 cases/year and 0.94 (CI 0.83 to 1.07) with ≥25 cases/year compared to low volume (≤12 cases/year). Type of revision did not influence second revision rate. CONCLUSION: Second revision rate of R-KA does not seem to be dependent on hospital volume or type of revision in the Netherlands. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, Observational registry study.

Association Between Surface Modifications for Biologic Fixation and Aseptic Loosening of Uncemented Total Knee Arthroplasties.

BACKGROUND: Various surface modifications are used in uncemented total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) to enhance bony ingrowth and longevity of implants. This study aimed to identify which surface modifications are used, whether they are associated with different revision rates for aseptic loosening, and which are underperforming compared to cemented implants. METHODS: Data on all cemented and uncemented TKAs used between 2007 and 2021 were obtained from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register. Uncemented TKAs were divided into groups based on their surface modifications. Revision rates for aseptic loosening and major revisions were compared between groups. Kaplan-Meier, Competing-Risk, Log-rank tests, and Cox regression analyses were used. In total, 235,500 cemented and 10,749 uncemented primary TKAs were included. The different uncemented TKA groups included the following: 1,140 porous-hydroxyapatite (HA); 8,450 Porous-uncoated; 702 Grit-blasted-uncoated; and 172 Grit-blasted-Titanium-nitride (TiN) implants. RESULTS: The 10-year revision rates for aseptic loosening and major revision of the cemented TKAs were 1.3 and 3.1%, and for uncemented TKAs 0.2 and 2.3% (porous-HA), 1.3 and 2.9% (porous-uncoated), 2.8 and 4.0% (grit-blasted-uncoated), and 7.9% and 17.4% (grit-blasted-TiN), respectively. Both type of revision rates varied significantly between the uncemented groups (log-rank tests, P < .001, P < .001). All grit-blasted implants had a significantly higher risk of aseptic loosening (P < .01), and porous-uncoated implants had a significantly lower risk of aseptic loosening than cemented implants (P = .03) after 10 years. CONCLUSION: There were 4 main uncemented surface modifications identified, with different revision rates for aseptic loosening. Implants with porous-HA and porous-uncoated had the best revision rates, at least equal to cemented TKAs. Grit-blasted implants with and without TiN underperformed, possibly due to the interaction of other factors.

Primary reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for fractures requires more revisions than for degenerative conditions 1 year after surgery: an analysis from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register.

BACKGROUND: Although reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) is considered a viable treatment strategy for proximal humeral fractures, there is an ongoing discussion of how its revision rate compares with indications performed in the elective setting. First, this study evaluated whether RTSA for fractures conveyed a higher revision rate than RTSA for degenerative conditions (osteoarthritis, rotator cuff arthropathy, rotator cuff tear, or rheumatoid arthritis). Second, this study assessed whether there was a difference in patient-reported outcomes between these 2 groups following primary replacement. Finally, the results of conventional stem designs were compared with those of fracture-specific designs within the fracture group. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective comparative cohort study with registry data from the Netherlands, generated prospectively between 2014 and 2020. Patients (aged ≥ 18 years) were included if they underwent primary RTSA for a fracture (<4 weeks after trauma), osteoarthritis, rotator cuff arthropathy, rotator cuff tear, or rheumatoid arthritis, with follow-up until first revision, death, or the end of the study period. The primary outcome was the revision rate. The secondary outcomes were the Oxford Shoulder Score, EuroQol 5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) score, numerical rating scale score (pain at rest and during activity), recommendation score, and scores assessing change in daily functioning and change in pain. RESULTS: This study included 8753 patients in the degenerative condition group (mean age, 74.3 ± 7.2 years) and 2104 patients in the fracture group (mean age, 74.3 ± 7.8 years). RTSA performed for fractures showed an early steep decline in survivorship: Adjusted for time, age, sex, and arthroplasty brand, the revision risk after 1 year was significantly higher in these patients than in those with degenerative conditions (hazard ratio [HR], 2.50; 95% confidence interval, 1.66-3.77). Over time, the HR steadily decreased, with an HR of 0.98 at year 6. Apart from the recommendation score (which was slightly better within the fracture group), there were no clinically relevant differences in the patient-reported outcome measures after 12 months. Patients who received conventional stems (n = 1137) did not have a higher likelihood of undergoing a revision procedure than those who received fracture-specific stems (n = 675) (HR, 1.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.91-3.17). CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing primary RTSA for fractures have a substantially higher likelihood of undergoing revision within the first year following the procedure than patients with degenerative conditions preoperatively. Although RTSA is regarded as a reliable and safe treatment option for fractures, surgeons should inform patients accordingly and incorporate this information in decision making when opting for head replacement surgery. There were no differences in patient-reported outcomes between the 2 groups and no differences in revision rates between conventional and fracture-specific stem designs.

Implant survival of total elbow arthroplasty: analysis of 514 cases from the Dutch Arthroplasty Registry.

The aim of this study is to report the implant survival and factors associated with revision of total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) using data from the Dutch national registry. All TEAs recorded in the Dutch national registry between 2014 and 2020 were included. The Kaplan-Meier method was used for survival analysis, and a logistic regression model was used to assess the factors associated with revision. A total of 514 TEAs were included, of which 35 were revised. The five-year implant survival was 91%. Male sex, a higher BMI, and previous surgery to the same elbow showed a statistically significant association with revision (p < 0.036). Of the 35 revised implants, ten (29%) underwent a second revision. This study reports a five-year implant survival of TEA of 91%. Patient factors associated with revision are defined and can be used to optimize informed consent and shared decision-making. There was a high rate of secondary revisions.

Survival rates of anatomically shaped and tapered slip cemented femoral implants: an analysis of 76,281 femoral implants of the Dutch arthroplasty register (LROI).

INTRODUCTION: In cemented total hip arthroplasty (THA) various shapes and geometries of femoral implants are in use. Collarless, polished, and tapered (CPT) implants, and anatomically shaped (AS) implants are most commonly used. Due to their different design features, this might lead to different survival outcomes. In this register-based study, overall implant survival and short-term complications of CPT and AS cemented implants were evaluated. METHODS: Data of the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI) were used. Cemented femoral implants, which could be classified as CPT or AS were included in this study. Implants were excluded when no classification could be made or if implanted <100 times. Survival analyses were performed using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and multivariable Cox-proportional hazard analysis. RESULTS: 76,281 cemented THAs were included. At a mean of 5.1 years follow-up (SD 3.1, range 0-12 years), the overall survival of the AS implants was higher compared with the CPT implants, with a survival, of 99.2% and 99.0% respectively (log-rank; p < 0.001). Multivariable regression analysis revealed a higher rate for revision because of loosening of the AS implants (HR 2; CI, 1.4-3.1). AS implants had a lower rate for periprosthetic fractures compared with the CPT implants (HR 0.13; CI, 0.07-0.23). CONCLUSIONS: Both designs show excellent overall survival rates at short-term follow-up. There is a higher overall survival of AS implants when compared with CPT implants. Revision for implant loosening, however, was statistically significantly higher in AS implants when compared with the CPT implants.

Higher risk of 2-year cup revision of ceramic-on-ceramic versus ceramic-on-polyethylene bearing: analysis of 33,454 primary press-fit total hip arthroplasties registered in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI).

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The influence of bearing on short-term revision in press-fit total hip arthroplasty (THA) remains under-reported. The aim of this study was to describe 2-year cup revision rates of ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC) and ceramic-on-polyethylene (CoPE). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Primary press-fit THAs with one of the three most used cups available with both CoC or CoPE bearing recorded in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI) were included (2007-2019). Primary outcome was 2-year cup revision for all reasons. Secondary outcomes were: reasons for revision, incidence of different revision procedures and use of both bearings over time. RESULTS: 2-year Kaplan-Meier cup revision rate in 33,454 THAs (12,535 CoC; 20,919 CoPE) showed a higher rate in CoC (0.67% [95% CI, 0.54-0.81]) compared to CoPE (0.44% [95% CI, 0.34-0.54]) (p = 0.004). Correction for confounders (age, gender, cup type, head size) resulted in a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.64 [95%CI, 0.48-0.87] (p = 0.019). Reasons for cup revision differed only by more cup revision due to loosening in CoC (26.2% vs.1 3.2%) (p = 0.030). For aseptic loosening a revision rate of 0.153% [95% CI, 0.075-0.231] was seen in CoC and 0.058% [95%CI 0.019-0.097] in CoPE (p = 0.007). Correction for head size resulted in a HR of 0.475 [95% CI, 0.197-1.141] (p = 0.096). Incidence of different revision procedures did not differ between bearings. Over time the use of CoPE has increased and CoC decreased. CONCLUSIONS: A higher 2-year cup revision rate in press-fit THA was observed in CoC compared to CoPE. Cup loosening was the only significantly different reason for revision and seen more often in CoC and mostly aseptic. Future randomised controlled trials need to confirm causality, since the early cup revision data provided has the potential to be useful when choosing the bearing in press-fit THA, when combined with other factors like bone quality and patient and implant characteristics.

Impact of the COVID-19 lockdown on patient-reported outcome measures in Dutch hip and knee arthroplasty patients.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: During the first COVID-19 lockdown elective surgery was greatly reduced. Prioritization of patients with greater need and expected benefit in terms of quality of life was advised. The lockdown also potentially affected follow-up outcomes. Therefore, our study compared patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) retrieved during the lockdown of Dutch primary total hip and knee arthroplasty (THA, TKA) patients with previous years. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed cross-sectional analyses using national data from the Dutch Orthopaedic Registry (LROI). All primary elective THA and TKA patients with preoperative or postoperative PROMs (EQ-5D-3L index, OHS/OKS) during the first COVID-19 lockdown between March and July 15, 2020 were included. Patients with PROMs during the same months in 2018 plus 2019 were used as control. Finally, 33,453 THA and 27,335 TKA patients were included. Patient characteristics were compared during versus before the lockdown. Subsequently, the lockdown effect on PROMs scores was analyzed with multivariable linear regression. RESULTS: During the COVID-19 lockdown, THA and TKA patients had a lower age and BMI preoperatively, and more often had surgery in private clinics. Both preoperative PROMs in THA patients, but not in TKA patients, were worse (EQ-5D: Adjusted mean difference (AMD) -0.021, p < 0.001) during the lockdown compared with prior years. Both postoperative PROMs in THA and TKA patients were better during the lockdown (12-month EQ-5D in THA: AMD 0.010, p = 0.003; and in TKA: AMD 0.013, p < 0.001). INTERPRETATION: During the COVID-19 lockdown, THA patients had slightly worse preoperative PROMs, suggesting selection of patients with greater urgency. Postoperative PROMs in both THA and TKA patients differed minimally. Overall, the observed differences were likely not clinically relevant.

Do symptoms of anxiety and/or depression and pain intensity before primary Total knee arthroplasty influence reason for revision? Results of an observational study from the Dutch arthroplasty register in 56,233 patients.

OBJECTIVE: Anxiety, depression and greater pain intensity before total knee arthroplasty (TKA) may increase the probability of revision surgery for remaining symptoms even without clear pathology or technical issues. We aimed to assess whether preoperative anxiety/depression and pain intensity are associated with revision TKA for less clear indications. METHODS: Less clear indications for revision were defined after a Delphi process in which consensus was reached among 59 orthopaedic knee experts. We performed a cox regression analyses on primary TKA patients registered in the Dutch Arthroplasty Registry (LROI) who completed the EuroQol 5D 3 L (EQ5D-3 L) anxiety/depression score to examine associations between preoperative anxiety/depression and pain (Numeric Rating Scale (NRS)) with TKA revision for less clear reasons. These analyses were adjusted for age, BMI, sex, smoking, ASA score, EQ5D-3 L thermometer and OKS score. RESULTS: In total, 25.9% patients of the 56,233 included patients reported moderate or severe symptoms of anxiety/depression on the EQ5D-3 L anxiety/depression score. Of those, 615 revisions (45.5%) were performed for less clear reasons for revision (patellar pain, malalignment, instability, progression of osteoarthritis or arthrofibrosis). Not EQ5D-3 L anxiety/depression score, but higher NRS pain at rest and EQ5D-3 L pain score were associated with revision for less clear reason (HR: 1.058, 95% CI 1.019-1.099 & HR: 1.241, 95% CI 1.044-1.476, respectively). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that pain intensity is a risk factor for TKA revision for a less clear reason. The finding that preoperative pain intensity was associated with reason for revision confirms a likely influence of subjective, personal factors on offer and acceptance of TKA revision. The association between anxiety/depression and reason for revision after TKA may also be found when including more specific outcome measures to assess anxiety/depression and we therefore hope to encourage further research on this topic with our study, ideally in a prospective setting. STUDY DESIGN: Longitudinal Cohort Study Level III, Delphi Consensus.

A registry study on radial head arthroplasties in the Netherlands: Indications, types and short-term survival.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to use the Dutch Arthroplasty Register data to report an overview of the contemporary indications and implant designs, and report the short-term survival of radial head arthroplasty. METHODS: From the Dutch Arthroplasty Register, data on patient demographics, surgery and revision were extracted for radial head arthroplasties performed from January 2014 to December 2019. Implant survival was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Two hundred fifty-eight arthroplasties were included with a median follow-up of 2.2 years. The most common indication was a fracture of the radial head (178, 69%). One hundred thirty-nine (68%) of the prostheses were of bipolar design, and the most commonly used implant type was the Radial Head System (Tornier; 134, 51%). Of the 258 included radial head arthroplasties, 16 were revised at a median of six months after surgery. Reason for revision was predominantly aseptic loosening (9). The overall implant survival was 95.8% after one year, 90.5% after three years and 89.5% after five years. DISCUSSION: For radial head arthroplasties, acute trauma is the most common indication and Radial Head System the most commonly used implant. The implant survival is 89.5% after five years.

Rare primary patellar resurfacing does not lead to more secondary patellar resurfacing: analysis of 70,014 primary total knee arthroplasties in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI).

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Current literature provides no conclusive evidence in support of a patellar resurfacing vs. non-resurfacing regime. Therefore, we compared the incidence of secondary patellar resurfacing among hospitals using 3 different primary patellar resurfacing regimes in the Netherlands. Secondarily we identified patient and surgical characteristics associated with primary patellar resurfacing and secondary patella resurfacing following non-resurfaced primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We used data from 2014-2016 of the Dutch Arthroplasty Register. Hospitals were divided into rare (0-10%), selective (>10% to 90%), and usually primary patellar resurfacing (>90%) regimes. We performed a logistic regression analysis for associated factors of primary patellar resurfacing in the selective resurfacing subgroup and for secondary patellar resurfacing in the rare resurfacing subgroup. RESULTS: The rate of primary resurfacing was 5.2% for the rare and 36% for the selective patellar resurfacing regimes, with similar secondary patellar resurfacing (1.1% vs. 0.9%). Predictors for primary patellar resurfacing were being female (OR 1.3) and younger (50-59 years, OR 1.4). The PS prosthesis design had a higher OR (4.1) than the CR design. Younger age (50-59 years, OR 1.5) and PS prosthesis (OR 2.7) were significant predictors of secondary patellar resurfacing. Particular surgical systems have a higher rate of primary and secondary patellar resurfacing. INTERPRETATION: Low rates of secondary patellar resurfacing in hospitals with a rare resurfacing regime indicate that this regime does not lead to more secondary patellar resurfacing then selective resurfacing. In the Dutch orthopedic community primary and secondary patellar resurfacing is associated with using a posterior stabilizing design, being younger, and using particular TKA systems.

Defining Clinically Meaningful Thresholds for Patient-Reported Outcomes in Knee Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: For primary knee arthroplasties, clinically meaningful thresholds of patient-reported outcomes that associate with patient satisfaction have not been defined appropriately. METHODS: In this retrospective study of 26,720 primary total knee replacements registered in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (2016-2018), receiver operating curve analysis was used to define minimal clinically important changes (MCICs) and patient acceptable symptom states (PASSs) with the anchor satisfaction. Patient-reported outcome measures were pain, European Quality of Life 5 Dimensions, Knee disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, and Oxford Knee Score (OKS). Independent analyses were performed for groups, which showed statistically significant interactions with the (change in) score to achieve satisfaction in logistic regression. RESULTS: In this cohort, 84.9% completed the anchor questions, of whom 71.3% with a satisfaction score ≥8. Good discriminative abilities (area under the receiving operator curve >0.8) for PASS were achieved by OKS ≥38.5, pain in activity ≤2.5, Knee disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score ≤33, and Quality of Life-Index ≥0.813. Discriminative abilities for MCIC were not good. If assessed per baseline tercile, discrimination improved (area under the receiving operator curve >0.8) and yielded different MCICs per preoperative tercile (preoperative OKS ≤19: MCIC ≥19.5; pre-OKS 20-27: MCIC ≥14.5; pre-OKS ≥28: MCIC ≥8.5). For MCIC, the tercile method produced an 11% improved accuracy compared to one threshold for every patient. For the PASS scores, tercile-specific did not improve the accuracy of predicting satisfaction. Demographics were not clinically relevant in determining thresholds. CONCLUSION: Estimating the likelihood of satisfaction with surgery is critical in shared decision-making. Patients with more preoperative symptom severity require larger changes to report satisfaction. Both in the clinic and in science, such differences must be considered when predictions of satisfaction are attempted.

Patella related problems as common reason for revision of NexGen PS® total knee arthroplasty without patella resurfacing: An analysis of 5911 primary total knee arthroplasties registered in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register.

BACKGROUND: Patella resurfacing remains controversial in primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA).The aim of this study was to investigate if there was a difference in revision rate and reason for revision within 8 years after single brand primary cemented TKA with or without patella resurfacing, using data from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register. METHODS: All primary TKA surgeries with a posterior stabilized cemented primary NexGen®, between 2010 and 2013 with diagnosis osteoarthritis were analyzed (n = 5911). Multivariate cox regression analyses were performed to analyze differences in revision rate between TKA with or without patella component, and was adjusted for age and previous surgery. RESULTS: Of 5911 TKA surgeries, 4795 were performed without patella resurfacing (81.1%) and 1116 with patella resurfacing (18.9%). There was a significant difference in patellar problems as reason for revision between patients after primary TKA with patella resurfacing (9.3%) and without patella resurfacing (29.9%) (p = 0.01). This was mostly caused by patellar pain (28.0%). There was no significant difference in cumulative revision rate within between TKA with patella resurfacing and without patella resurfacing. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, 30% of patients who need revision surgery after TKA using NexGen® PS without patella resurfacing the reason for revision is patella related problems, compared to 9% after TKA NexGen® PS with patella resurfacing. There was no difference in cumulative incidence of revision after primary surgery of all TKA's using NexGen® PS with or without patella. To reduce the probability of reoperation for patella related problems, our data suggest the patella should be resurface during primary TKA.