Dual Mobility Articulation in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: An American Joint Replacement Registry Analysis of Patients Aged 65 Years and Older.

BACKGROUND: Increasingly, dual mobility (DM) articulations have been used in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA), which may prevent postoperative hip instability. The purpose of this study was to report on outcomes of DM implants used in revision THA from the American Joint Replacement Registry (AJRR). METHODS: Revision THA cases performed between 2012 and 2018 Medicare were eligible and categorized by 3 articulations: DM, ≤32 mm, and ≥36 mm femoral heads. The AJRR-sourced revision THA cases were linked to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) claims data to supplement (re)revision cases not captured in the AJRR. Patient and hospital characteristics were described and modeled as covariates. Using multivariable Cox proportional hazard models, considering competing risk of mortalities, hazard ratios were estimated for all-cause re-revision and re-revision for instability. Of 20,728 revision THAs, 3,043 (14.7%) received a DM, 6,565 (31.7%) a ≤32 mm head, and 11,120 (53.6%) a ≥36 mm head. RESULTS: At 8-year follow-up, the cumulative all-cause re-revision rate for ≤32 mm heads was 21.9% (95%-confidence interval (CI) 20.2%-23.7%) and significantly (P < .0001) higher than DM (16.5%, 95%-CI 15.0%-18.2%) and ≥36 mm heads (15.2%, 95%-CI 14.2%-16.3%). At 8-year follow-up, ≥36 heads had significantly (P < .0001) lower hazard of re-revision for instability (3.3%, 95%-CI 2.9%-3.7%) while the DM (5.4%, 95%-CI 4.5%-6.5%) and ≤32 mm groups (8.6%, 95%-CI 7.7%-9.6%) had higher rates. CONCLUSION: The DM bearings are associated with lower rates of revision for instability compared to patients who had ≤32 mm heads and higher revision rates for ≥36 mm heads. These results may be biased due to unidentified covariates associated with implant selection.

Cementless Fixation Is Associated With Increased Risk of Early and All-Time Revision After Hemiarthroplasty But Not After THA for Femoral Neck Fracture: Results From the American Joint Replacement Registry.

BACKGROUND: Despite ample evidence supporting cemented femoral fixation for both hemiarthroplasty and THA for surgical treatment of displaced femoral neck fractures, cementless fixation is the preferred fixation method in the United States. To our knowledge, no nationally representative registry from the United States has compared revision rates by fixation for this surgical treatment. QUESTION/PURPOSE: After controlling for relevant confounding variables, is femoral fixation method (cemented or cementless) in hemiarthroplasty or THA for femoral neck fracture associated with a greater risk of (1) all-cause revision or (2) revision for periprosthetic fracture? METHODS: Patients with Medicare insurance who had femoral neck fractures treated with hemiarthroplasty or THA reported in the American Joint Replacement Registry database from 2012 to 2017 and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services claims data from 2012 to 2017 were analyzed in this retrospective, large-database study. Of the 37,201 hemiarthroplasties, 42% (15,748) used cemented fixation and 58% (21,453) used cementless fixation. Of the 7732 THAs, 20% (1511) used cemented stem fixation and 80% (6221) used cementless stem fixation. For both the hemiarthroplasty and THA cohorts, most patients were women and had cementless femoral fixation. Early revision was defined as a procedure that occurred less than 90 days from the index procedure. All patients submitted to the registry were included in the analysis. Patient follow-up was limited to the study period. No patients were lost to follow-up. Due to inherent limitations with the registry, we did not compare medical complications, including deaths attributed directly to cemented fixation. A logistic regression model including the index arthroplasty, age, gender, stem fixation method, hospital size, hospital teaching affiliation, and Charlson comorbidity index score was used to determine associations between the index procedure and revision rates. RESULTS: For the hemiarthroplasty cohort, risk factors for any revision were cementless stem fixation (odds ratio 1.42 [95% confidence interval 1.20 to 1.68]; p < 0.001), younger age (OR 0.96 [95% CI 0.95 to 0.97]; p < 0.001), and higher Charlson comorbidity index (OR 1.06 [95% CI 1.02 to 1.11]; p = 0.004). Risk factors for early revision were cementless stem fixation (OR 1.77 [95% CI 1.43 to 2.20]; p < 0.001), younger age (OR 0.98 [95% CI 0.97 to 0.99]; p < 0.001), and higher Charlson comorbidity index (OR 1.09 [95% CI 1.04 to 1.15]; p < 0.001). Risk factors for revision due to periprosthetic fracture were cementless fixation (OR 6.19 [95% CI 3.08 to 12.42]; p < 0.001) and higher Charlson comorbidity index (OR 1.16 [95% CI 1.06 to 1.28]; p = 0.002). Risk factors for early revision due to periprosthetic fracture were cementless fixation (OR 7.38 [95% CI 3.17 to 17.17]; p < 0.001), major teaching hospital (OR 2.10 [95% CI 1.08 to 4.10]; p = 0.03), and higher Charlson comorbidity index (OR 1.20 [95% CI 1.09 to 1.33]; p < 0.001). For the THA cohort, there were no associations. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that cemented fixation should be the preferred technique for most patients with displaced femoral neck fractures treated with hemiarthroplasty. The fact that stem fixation method did not affect revision rates for those patients with displaced femoral neck fractures treated with THA may be due to current practice patterns in the United States. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Trends in the use of dual mobility bearings in hip arthroplasty.

AIMS: Dual mobility (DM) bearings are an attractive treatment option to obtain hip stability during challenging primary and revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) cases. The purpose of this study was to analyze data submitted to the American Joint Replacement Registry (AJRR) to characterize utilization trends of DM bearings in the USA. METHODS: All primary and revision THA procedures reported to AJRR from 2012 to 2018 were analyzed. Patients of all ages were included and subdivided into DM and traditional bearing surface cohorts. Patient demographics, geographical region, hospital size, and teaching affiliation were assessed. Associations were determined by chi-squared analysis and logistic regression was performed to assess outcome variables. RESULTS: A total of 406,900 primary and 34,745 revision THAs were identified, of which 35,455 (8.7%) and 8,031 (23.1%) received DM implants respectively. For primary THA, DM usage increased from 6.7% in 2012 to 12.0% in 2018. Among revision THA, DM use increased from 19.5% in 2012 to 30.6% in 2018. Patients < 50 years of age had the highest rates of DM implantation in every year examined. For each year of increase in age, there was a 0.4% decrease in the rate of DM utilization (odds ratio (OR) 0.996 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.995 to 0.997); p < 0.001). Females were more likely to receive a DM implant compared to males (OR 1.077 (95% CI 1.054 to 1.100); p < 0.001). Major teaching institutions and smaller hospitals were associated with higher rates of utilization. DM articulations were used more commonly for dysplasia compared with osteoarthritis (OR 2.448 (95% CI 2.032 to 2.949); p < 0.001) during primary THA and for instability (OR 3.130 (95% CI 2.751 to 3.562) vs poly-wear; p < 0.001) in the revision setting. CONCLUSION: DM articulations showed a marked increase in utilization during the period examined. Younger patient age, female sex, and hospital characteristics such as teaching status, smaller size, and geographical location were associated with increased utilization. DM articulations were used more frequently for primary THA in patients with dysplasia and for revision THA in patients being treated for instability. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(7 Supple B):27-32.

Manipulation Under Anesthesia After Total Knee: Who Still Requires a Revision Arthroplasty?

BACKGROUND: Stiffness after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a multifactorial complication involving patient, implant, surgical technique, and rehabilitation, occasionally necessitating manipulation under anesthesia (MUA) or revision. Few modern databases contain sufficient longitudinal information of all factors. We characterized MUA after primary TKA and identified independent risk factors for revision TKA after MUA from the American Joint Replacement Registry. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed primary TKAs for American Joint Replacement Registry patients ≥65 years from January 1, 2012 to 31 March, 2019. We linked these to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services database to identify MUA and revision TKA procedure codes. We compared groups with chi-squared testing, identifying independent risk factors for subsequent revision with binary logistic regression presented as odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: Of 664,604 primary TKAs, 3918 (0.6%) underwent MUA after a median of 2.0 ± 1.0 months. Revision surgery occurred in 131 (3.4%) MUA patients after a median of 9.0 months. Timing of MUA was not different between revision and no revision patients (P = .09). Patients undergoing MUA compared to no MUA were older (age 71.5 vs 70.7, P < .01), predominantly female (63.9% vs 61.2%, P < .01), current/former tobacco users (24.2% vs 13.3%, P < .01), with osteoarthritis diagnoses (98.0% vs 84.3%, P < .01). Independent risk factors for revision after MUA were male gender (1.56, 1.09-2.22). CONCLUSION: The incidence of MUA after primary TKA is low (0.6%) in Medicare patients ≥65 years of age; 3.4% progress to revision after a median of 9 months. Being male was significantly associated with revision TKA after MUA.