The outcomes of acute periprosthetic joint infection following unicompartmental knee replacement managed with early debridement, Antibiotics, and implant retention.

BACKGROUND: Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) is an uncommon, yet serious, complication. There is a paucity of evidence regarding the effectiveness of Debridement-Antibiotics-and-Implant-Retention (DAIR) in this setting. The aim of this study is to investigate the effectiveness of DAIR for acute UKR PJI. METHOD: Between 2006 and 2019, 5195 UKR were performed at our institution. Over this period, sixteen patients underwent DAIR for early, acute PJI. All patients met MSIS PJI diagnostic criteria. The median age at DAIR was 67 years (range 40-73) and 12 patients were male (75.0%). The median time to DAIR was 24 days (range 6-60). Patients were followed up for a median of 6.5 years (range1.4-10.5) following DAIR. RESULTS: 0.3% (16/5195) of UKR in our institution had a DAIR within 3 months. 15 of 16 patients (93.8%) were culture positive, with the most common organism MSSA (n = 8, 50.0%). Patients were treated with an organism-specific intravenous antibiotic regime for a median of 6 weeks, followed by oral antibiotics for a median duration of 6 months. The Kaplan-Meier survivor estimate for revision for PJI was 57% (95%CI: 28-78%) at five years, and survivor estimate for all cause revision 52% (95%CI: 25-74%).The median Oxford Knee Score for patients with a viable implant at final follow-up was 45 points (range 39-46). CONCLUSION: Early, acute PJI after UKR is rare. DAIR had a moderate success rate, with infection-free survivorship of 57% at 5 years. Those successfully treated with DAIR had excellent functional outcome and implant survival.

No exponential rise in revision knee replacement surgery over the past 15 years: an analysis from the National Joint Registry.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate trends in the incidence rate and the main indication for revision knee replacement (rKR) over the past 15 years in the UK. METHOD: Repeated national cross-sectional study from 2006 to 2020 using data from the National Joint Registry (NJR). Crude incidence rates were calculated using population statistics from the Office for National Statistics. RESULTS: Annual total counts of rKR increased from 2,743 procedures in 2006 to 6,819 procedures in 2019 (149% increase). The incidence rate of rKR increased from 6.3 per 100,000 adults in 2006 (95% CI 6.1 to 6.5) to 14 per 100,000 adults in 2019 (95% CI 14 to 14) (122% increase). Annual increases in the incidence rate of rKR became smaller over the study period. There was a 43.6% reduction in total rKR procedures in 2020 (during the Covid-19 pandemic) compared to 2019. Aseptic loosening was the most frequent indication for rKR overall (20.7% procedures). rKR for aseptic loosening peaked in 2012 and subsequently decreased. rKR for infection increased incrementally over the study period to become the most frequent indication in 2019 (2.7 per 100,000 adults [95% CI 2.6 to 2.9]). Infection accounted for 17.1% first linked rKR, 36.5% second linked rKR and 49.4% third or more linked rKR from 2014 to 2019. CONCLUSIONS: Recent trends suggest slowing of the rate of increase in the incidence of rKR. Infection is now the most common indication for rKR, following recent decreases in rKR for aseptic loosening. Infection was prevalent in re-revision KR procedures.

The risk of cardiac failure following metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to determine whether patients with metal-on-metal (MoM) arthroplasties of the hip have an increased risk of cardiac failure compared with those with alternative types of arthroplasties (non-MoM). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A linkage study between the National Joint Registry, Hospital Episodes Statistics and records of the Office for National Statistics on deaths was undertaken. Patients who underwent elective total hip arthroplasty between January 2003 and December 2014 with no past history of cardiac failure were included and stratified as having either a MoM (n = 53 529) or a non-MoM (n = 482 247) arthroplasty. The primary outcome measure was the time to an admission to hospital for cardiac failure or death. Analysis was carried out using data from all patients and from those matched by propensity score. RESULTS: The risk of cardiac failure was lower in the MoM cohort compared with the non-MoM cohort (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 0.901; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.853 to 0.953). The risk of cardiac failure was similar following matching (aHR 0.909; 95% CI 0.838 to 0.987) and the findings were consistent in subgroup analysis. CONCLUSION: The risk of cardiac failure following total hip arthroplasty was not increased in those in whom MoM implants were used, compared with those in whom other types of prostheses were used, in the first seven years after surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:20-7.

Are all metal-on-metal hip revision operations contributing to the National Joint Registry implant survival curves? : a study comparing the London Implant Retrieval Centre and National Joint Registry datasets.

AIMS: The National Joint Registry for England, Wales and Northern Ireland (NJR) has extended its scope to report on hospital, surgeon and implant performance. Data linkage of the NJR to the London Implant Retrieval Centre (LIRC) has previously evaluated data quality for hip primary procedures, but did not assess revision records. METHODS: We analysed metal-on-metal hip revision procedures performed between 2003 and 2013. A total of 69 929 revision procedures from the NJR and 929 revised pairs of components from the LIRC were included. RESULTS: We were able to link 716 (77.1%) revision procedures on the NJR to the LIRC. This meant that 213 (22.9%) revision procedures at the LIRC could not be identified on the NJR. We found that 349 (37.6%) explants at the LIRC completed the full linkage process to both NJR primary and revision databases. Data completion was excellent (> 99.9%) for revision procedures reported to the NJR. DISCUSSION: This study has shown that only approximately one third of retrieved components at the LIRC, contributed to survival curves on the NJR. We recommend prospective registry-retrieval linkage as a tool to feedback missing and erroneous data to the NJR and improve data quality. TAKE HOME MESSAGE: Prospective Registry - retrieval linkage is a simple tool to evaluate and improve data quality on the NJR.

Validation of primary metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties on the National Joint Registry for England, Wales and Northern Ireland using data from the London Implant Retrieval Centre: a study using the NJR dataset.

Arthroplasty registries are important for the surveillance of joint replacements and the evaluation of outcome. Independent validation of registry data ensures high quality. The ability for orthopaedic implant retrieval centres to validate registry data is not known. We analysed data from the National Joint Registry for England, Wales and Northern Ireland (NJR) for primary metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties performed between 2003 and 2013. Records were linked to the London Implant Retrieval Centre (RC) for validation. A total of 67,045 procedures on the NJR and 782 revised pairs of components from the RC were included. We were able to link 476 procedures (60.9%) recorded with the RC to the NJR successfully. However, 306 procedures (39.1%) could not be linked. The outcome recorded by the NJR (as either revised, unrevised or death) for a primary procedure was incorrect in 79 linked cases (16.6%). The rate of registry-retrieval linkage and correct assignment of outcome code improved over time. The rates of error for component reference numbers on the NJR were as follows: femoral head category number 14/229 (5.0%); femoral head batch number 13/232 (5.3%); acetabular component category number 2/293 (0.7%) and acetabular component batch number 24/347 (6.5%). Registry-retrieval linkage provided a novel means for the validation of data, particularly for component fields. This study suggests that NJR reports may underestimate rates of revision for many types of metal-on-metal hip replacement. This is topical given the increasing scope for NJR data. We recommend a system for continuous independent evaluation of the quality and validity of NJR data.

Surveillance of Patients with Metal-on-Metal Hip Resurfacing and Total Hip Prostheses: A Prospective Cohort Study to Investigate the Relationship Between Blood Metal Ion Levels and Implant Failure.

BACKGROUND: We designed a prospective, single-center study to assess whether blood metal ion levels could predict implant failure in patients managed with unilateral metal-on-metal hip resurfacing or total hip arthroplasty. METHODS: Five hundred and ninety-seven patients who had received unilateral Articular Surface Replacement prostheses at least twelve months earlier were recruited. Blood metal ion levels were compared between the group of patients with failed implants and the group with non-failed implants. Implant failure was defined as prostheses associated with revision, an intention to revise, or poor patient-reported hip function (Oxford Hip Score, <31 of 48). Specificity, sensitivity, area under the curve, positive and negative predictive values, and odds ratios were calculated. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify other risk factors for implant failure. RESULTS: Patients with failed arthroplasty had significantly higher blood cobalt and chromium ion levels than did patients with non-failed arthroplasty (p < 0.01). Blood cobalt ion levels were disproportionately raised in patients with failed total hip arthroplasty (8.2 µg/L) compared with patients with failed hip resurfacing (2.5 µg/L) (p = 0.018). Blood chromium ion levels were not significantly different in patients with failed total hip arthroplasty and failed hip resurfacing (p = 0.058). The maximum value of either metal ion had good discriminant ability to predict implant failure (area under the curve, 0.76). A 7-µg/L cutoff had a positive predictive value of 0.75 (95% confidence interval, 0.66 to 0.82) and a negative predictive value of 0.82 (95% confidence interval, 0.78 to 0.86). In patients managed with total hip arthroplasty, for each increase of 1 µg/L there was a 23% (p < 0.001) increase in the odds of them being in the failed group. For patients managed with hip resurfacing, the increase in odds was 5% (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Raised levels of blood metal ions were associated with failed metal-on-metal hip resurfacings and total hip arthroplasties. A threshold level of 7 µg/L had inadequate sensitivity to be used in isolation as a screening test for implant failure, but it provided nearly optimal misclassification rates. No level had a perfect positive predictive value, and so we discourage surgeons from performing revision surgery based on blood metal ion levels alone. Levels of cobalt ions were raised out of proportion to levels of chromium ions in failed total hip arthroplasty and may reflect a different mechanism for metal ion generation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Sensitivity and specificity of blood cobalt and chromium metal ions for predicting failure of metal-on-metal hip replacement.

Blood metal ions have been widely used to investigate metal-on-metal hip replacements, but their ability to discriminate between well-functioning and failed hips is not known. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has suggested a cut-off level of 7 parts per billion (ppb). We performed a pair-matched, case-control study to investigate the sensitivity and specificity of blood metal ion levels for diagnosing failure in 176 patients with a unilateral metal-on-metal hip replacement. We recruited 88 cases with a pre-revision, unexplained failed hip and an equal number of matching controls with a well-functioning hip. We investigated the 7 ppb cut-off level for the maximum of cobalt or chromium and determined optimal mathematical cut-off levels from receiver-operating characteristic curves. The 7 ppb cut-off level for the maximum of cobalt or chromium had a specificity of 89% and sensitivity 52% for detecting a pre-operative unexplained failed metal on metal hip replacement. The optimal cut-off level for the maximum of cobalt or chromium was 4.97 ppb and had sensitivity 63% and specificity 86%. Blood metal ions had good discriminant ability to separate failed from well-functioning hip replacements. The MHRA cut-off level of 7 ppb provides a specific test but has poor sensitivity.