Distal humeral hemiarthroplasty compared to total elbow replacement for distal humeral fractures: a registry analysis of 906 procedures.

BACKGROUND: Total elbow replacement (TER) is an accepted treatment for complex intra-articular distal humerus fractures in elderly patients. Distal humeral hemiarthroplasty (HA) is also a potential surgical option for unreconstructable fractures and avoids the concerns regarding mechanical wear and functional restrictions associated with TER. In the current literature, there are limited data available to compare the revision rates of HA and TER for the treatment of fracture. We used data from a large national arthroplasty registry to compare the outcome of HA and TER undertaken for fracture/dislocation and to assess the impact of demographics and implant choice on revision rates. METHODS: Data obtained from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry from May 2, 2005, to December 31, 2021, included all procedures for primary elbow replacement with primary diagnosis of fracture or dislocation. The analyses were performed using Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship and hazard ratios (HRs) from Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: There were 293 primary HA and 631 primary TER procedures included. The cumulative percentage revision (CPR) rate at 9 years was 9.7% for HA (95% confidence interval [CI] 6.0, 15.7), and 11.9% (95% CI 8.5, 16.6) for TER. When adjusted for age and gender, there was a significantly higher risk of revision after 3 months for TER compared to HA (HR 2.47, 95% CI 1.22, 5.03, P = .012). There was no difference in the rate of revision for patients aged <55 years or ≥75 years when HA and TER procedures were compared. In primary TER procedures, loosening was the most common cause of revision (3.6% of primary TER procedures), and the most common type of revision in primary TER involved revision of the humeral component only (2.6% of TER procedures). TER has a higher rate of first revision for loosening compared to HA (HR 4.21, 95% CI 1.29, 13.73; P = .017). In HA procedures, instability (1.7%) was the most common cause for revision. The addition of an ulna component was the most common type of revision (2.4% of all HA procedures). CONCLUSION: For the treatment of distal humerus fractures, HA had a lower revision rate than TER after 3 months when adjusted for age and gender. Age <55 or ≥75 years was not a risk factor for revision when HA was compared to TER. Loosening leading to revision is more prevalent in TER and increases with time. In HA, the most common type of revision involved addition of an ulna component with preservation of the humeral component.

Obesity is associated with an increased risk of undergoing shoulder arthroplasty in Australia.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to examine the incidence of overweight and obesity in patients undergoing primary total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) for osteoarthritis (OA) in Australia compared to the incidence of obesity in the general population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 2017/18 cohort consisting of 2997 patients from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) who underwent TSA were compared with matched controls from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) National Health Survey from the same time period. The 2 groups were analyzed according to body mass index (BMI) category, sex, and age. RESULTS: According to the 2017/18 National Health Survey, 35.6% of Australian adults were overweight and 31.3% were obese. Of the primary TSA cases performed, 34.9% were overweight and 50.1% were obese. The relative risk of requiring TSA for OA increased with increasing BMI category. Class III obese females, aged 55-64, were 8.6 times more likely to receive a TSA compared to their normal weight counterparts. Males in the same age and BMI category were 2.5 times more likely. Class III obese patients underwent TSA 4 years (female) and 6 years (male) younger than their normal weight counterparts. CONCLUSION: Obesity significantly increases the risk of requiring TSA. The association appears to be particularly strong for younger females.

Hip Arthroplasty Outcomes in the Presence of Kidney Failure: A National Data Linkage Study.

BACKGROUND: Patients who have kidney failure are at higher risk of requiring total hip arthroplasty (THA) and are at higher risk of complications. This study compared the rate of revision surgery and mortality following THA between patients who have kidney failure receiving long term dialysis or who had a kidney transplant and those who did not have kidney failure. METHODS: A data linkage study was performed using data from 2 national registries: a registry of dialysis and kidney transplant patients and a registry of THA procedures. Both registries had coverage of almost all procedures or treatments in Australia. Data from September 1999 to December 2016 were used. Mortality and revision surgery were compared between patients receiving dialysis, those who had a functioning kidney transplant, and patients who did not have kidney failure using Cox and Fine-Gray (competing risk) regression models. A total of 383,478 primary THA procedures were identified as people receiving dialysis (n = 490), who had a functioning kidney transplant (n = 459), or who did not have kidney failure (n = 382,529). RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the overall rate of revision surgery between the groups (dialysis versus no kidney failure HR = 1.20; 95% CI 0.76, 1.88, transplant versus no kidney failure (hazard ratio) HR = 1.01; 95% (confidence interval) CI 0.66, 1.53). The risk for death after surgery was significantly higher in the dialysis group compared to both the functioning transplant group (HR = 3.44; 95%CI 1.58, 7.5), and in those without kidney failure (HR = 4.13; 95%CI 3.25, 5.25). CONCLUSION: The rate of mortality after THA in patients on dialysis is higher than in patients who have a functioning transplant or those who do not have kidney failure, but there is no early excess mortality to suggest a difference in this metric due to the surgery.

Association between socioeconomic status and joint replacement of the hip and knee: a population-based cohort study of older adults in Tasmania.

BACKGROUND: A socioeconomic gradient exists in the utilisation of total hip replacements (THR) and total knee replacements (TKR) for osteoarthritis. However, the relations between socioeconomic status (SES) and time to THR or TKR is unknown. AIM: To describe the association between SES and time to THR and TKR. METHODS: One thousand and seventy-two older adults residing in Tasmania, Australia, were studied. Incident primary THR and TKR were determined by data linkage to the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. At baseline, each participant's area-level SES was determined using the Index of Relative Socioeconomic Advantage and Disadvantage (IRSAD) from the Australian Bureau of Statistics' 2001 census data. The IRSAD was analysed in two ways: (i) categorised into quartiles, whereby quartile 1 represented the most socioeconomically disadvantaged group; and (ii) the cohort dichotomised at the quartile 1 cut-point. RESULTS: The mean age was 63.0 (±7.5) years and 51% were women. Over the median follow up of 12.9 (interquartile range: 12.2-13.9) years, 56 (5%) participants had a THR and 79 (7%) had a TKR. Compared with the most disadvantaged quartile, less disadvantaged participants were less likely to have a THR (i.e. less disadvantaged participants had a longer time to THR; hazard ratio (HR): 0.56; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.32, 1.00) but not TKR (HR: 0.90; 95% CI 0.53, 1.54). However, the former became non-significant after adjustment for pain and radiographic osteoarthritis, suggesting that the associations may be mediated by these factors. CONCLUSIONS: The present study suggests that time to joint replacement was determined according to the symptoms/need of the participants rather than their SES.

What Can We Learn From Surgeons Who Perform THA and TKA and Have the Lowest Revision Rates? A Study from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry.

BACKGROUND: Long-term implant survivorship in THA and TKA involves a combination of factors related to the patient, the implants used, and the decision-making and technical performance of the surgeon. It is unclear which of these factors is the most important in reducing the proportion of revision surgery. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We used data from a large national registry to ask: In patients receiving primary THA and TKA for a diagnosis of osteoarthritis, do (1) the reasons for revision and (2) patient factors, the implants used, and the surgeon or surgical factors differ between surgeons performing THA and TKA who have a lower revision rate compared with all other surgeons? METHODS: Data were analyzed for all THA and TKA procedures performed for a diagnosis of osteoarthritis from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) from September 1, 1999, when collection began, to December 31, 2018. The AOANJRR obtains data on more than 98% of joint arthroplasties performed in Australia. The 5-year cumulative percent revision (CPR) was identified for all THAs and TKAs performed for a diagnosis of osteoarthritis with 95% confidence intervals (overall CPR); the 5-year CPR with 95% CIs for each surgeon was calculated for THA and TKA separately. For surgeons to be included in the analysis, they had to have performed at least 50 procedures and have a 5-year CPR. The 5-year CPR with 95% CIs for each THA and TKA surgeon was compared with the overall CPR. Two groups were defined: low revision rate surgeons (the upper confidence level for a given surgeon at 5 years is less than 3.84% for THA and 4.32% for TKA), and all other surgeons (any surgeon whose CPR was higher than those thresholds). The thresholds were determined by setting a cutoff at 20% above the upper confidence level for that class. The approach we used to define a low revision rate surgeon was similar to that used by the AOANJRR for determining the better-performing prostheses and is recommended by the International Prosthesis Benchmarking Working Group. By defining the groups in this way, a significant difference between these two groups is created. Determining a reason for this difference is the purpose of presenting the proportions of different factors within each group. The study group for THA included 116 low revision rate surgeons, who performed 88,392 procedures (1619 revised, 10-year CPR 2.7% [95% CI 2.6% to 2.9%]) and 433 other surgeons, who performed 170,094 procedures (6911 revised, 10-year CPR 5.9% [95% CI 5.7% to 6.0%]). The study group for TKA consisted of 144 low revision rate surgeons, who performed 159,961 procedures (2722 revised, 10-year CPR 2.6% [95% CI 2.5% to 2.8%]) and 534 other surgeons, who performed 287,232 procedures (12,617 revised, 10-year CPR 6.4% [95% CI 6.3% to 6.6%]). These groups were defined a priori by their rate of revision, and the purpose of this study was to explore potential reasons for this observed difference. RESULTS: For THA, the difference in overall revision rate between low revision rate surgeons and other surgeons was driven mainly by fewer revisions for dislocation, followed by component loosening and fracture in patients treated by low revision rate surgeons. For TKA, the difference in overall revision rate between low revision rate surgeons and other surgeons was driven mainly by fewer revisions for aseptic loosening, followed by instability and patellofemoral complications in patients treated by low revision rate surgeons. Patient-related factors were generally similar between low revision rate surgeons and other surgeons for both THA and TKA. Regarding THA, there were differences in implant factors, with low revision rate surgeons using fewer types of implants that have been identified as having a higher-than-anticipated rate of revision within the AOANJRR. Low revision rate surgeons used a higher proportion of hybrid fixation, although cementless fixation remained the most common choice. For surgeon factors, low revision rate surgeons were more likely to perform more than 100 THA procedures per year, while other surgeons were more likely to perform fewer than 50 THA procedures per year. In general, the groups of surgeons (low revision rate surgeons and other surgeons) differed less in terms of years of surgical experience than they did in terms of the number of cases they performed each year, although low revision rate surgeons, on average, had more years of experience and performed more cases per year. Regarding TKA, there were more differences in implant factors than with THA, with low revision rate surgeons more frequently performing patellar resurfacing, using an AOANJRR-identified best-performing prosthesis combination (with the lowest rates of revision), using fewer implants that have been identified as having a higher-than-anticipated rate of revision within the AOANJRR, using highly crosslinked polyethylene, and using a higher proportion of cemented fixation compared with other surgeons. For surgeon factors, low revision rate surgeons were more likely to perform more than 100 TKA procedures per year, whereas all other surgeons were more likely to perform fewer than 50 procedures per year. Again, generally, the groups of surgeons (low revision rate surgeons and other surgeons) differed less in terms of years of surgical experience than they did in terms of the number of cases they performed annually, although low revision rate surgeons, on average, had more years of experience and performed more cases per year. CONCLUSION: THAs and TKAs performed by surgeons with the lowest revision rates in Australia show reductions in all of the leading causes of revision for both THA and TKA, in particular, causes of revision related to the technical performance of these procedures. Patient factors were similar between low revision rate surgeons and all other surgeons for both THA and TKA. Low revision rate THA surgeons were more likely to use cement fixation selectively. Low revision rate TKA surgeons were more likely to use patella resurfacing, crosslinked polyethylene, and cemented fixation. Low revision rate THA and TKA surgeons were more likely to use an AOANJRR-identified best-performing prosthesis combination and to use fewer implants identified by the AOANJRR as having a higher-than-anticipated revision rate. To reduce the rate of revision THA and TKA, surgeons should consider addressing modifiable factors related to implant selection. Future research should identify surgeon factors beyond annual case volume that are important to improving implant survivorship. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Poor Knee-specific and Generic Patient-reported Outcome Measure Scores at 6 Months Are Associated With Early Revision Knee Arthroplasty: A Study From the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry.

BACKGROUND: The ability to identify which patients are at a greater risk of early revision knee arthroplasty has important practical and resource implications. Many international arthroplasty registries administer patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to provide a holistic assessment of pain, function, and quality of life. However, few PROM scores have been evaluated as potential indicators of early revision knee arthroplasty, and earlier studies have largely focused on knee-specific measures. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: This national registry-based study asked: (1) Which 6-month postoperative knee-specific and generic PROM scores are associated with early revision knee arthroplasty (defined as revision surgery performed 6 to 24 months after the primary procedure)? (2) Is a clinically important improvement in PROM scores (based on thresholds for the minimal important change) after primary knee arthroplasty associated with a lower risk of early revision? METHODS: Preoperative and 6-month postoperative PROM scores for patients undergoing primary knee arthroplasty were sourced from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) and Arthroplasty Clinical Outcomes Registry National. Between January 2013 and December 2020, PROM data were available for 19,402 primary total knee arthroplasties; these data were linked to AOANJRR data on revision knee arthroplasty. Of these, 3448 procedures were excluded because they did not have 6-month PROM data, they had not reached the 6-month postoperative point, they had died before 24 months, or they had received revision knee arthroplasty before the 6-month PROMs assessment. After these exclusions, data were analyzed for 15,954 primary knee arthroplasties. Associations between knee-specific (knee pain, Oxford Knee Score, and 12-item Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score [KOOS-12]) or generic PROM scores (5-level EuroQol quality of life instrument [EQ-5D], EQ VAS, perceived change, and satisfaction) and revision surgery were explored using t-tests, chi-square tests, and regression models. Ninety-four revision procedures were performed at 6 to 24 months, most commonly for infection (39% [37 procedures]). The early revision group was younger than the unrevised group (mean age 64 years versus 68 years) and a between-group difference in American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade was noted. Apart from a small difference in preoperative low back pain for the early revision group (mean low back pain VAS 4.2 points for the early revision group versus 3.3 points for the unrevised group), there were no between-group differences in preoperative knee-specific or generic PROM scores on univariate analysis. As the inclusion of ASA grade or low back pain score did not alter the model results, the final multivariable model included only the most clinically plausible confounders (age and gender) as covariates. Multivariable models (adjusting for age and gender) were also used to examine the association between a clinically important improvement in PROM scores (based on published thresholds for minimal important change) and the likelihood of early revision. RESULTS: After adjusting for age and gender, poor postoperative knee pain, Oxford, KOOS-12, EQ-5D, and EQ VAS scores were all associated with early revision. A one-unit increase (worsening) in knee pain at 6 months was associated with a 31% increase in the likelihood of revision (RR 1.31 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19 to 1.43]; p < 0.001). Reflecting the reversed scoring direction, a one-unit increase (improvement) in Oxford or KOOS-12 score was associated with a 9% and 5% reduction in revision risk, respectively (RR for Oxford: 0.91 [95% CI 0.90 to 0.93]; p < 0.001; RR for KOOS-12 summary: 0.95 [95% CI 0.94 to 0.97]; p < 0.001). Patient dissatisfaction (RR 6.8 [95% CI 3.7 to 12.3]) and patient-perceived worsening (RR 11.7 [95% CI 7.4 to 18.5]) at 6 months were also associated with an increased likelihood of early revision. After adjusting for age and gender, patients who did not achieve a clinically important improvement in PROM scores had a higher risk of early revision (RR 2.9 for the knee pain VAS, RR 4.2 for the Oxford Knee Score, RR 6.3 to 8.6 for KOOS-12, and RR 2.3 for EQ-5D) compared with those who did (reference group). CONCLUSION: Knee-specific and generic PROM scores offer an efficient approach to identifying patients at greater risk of early revision surgery, using either the 6-month score or the magnitude of improvement. These data indicate that surgeons can use single- and multi-item measures to detect a patient-perceived unsuccessful surgical outcome at 6 months after primary knee arthroplasty. Surgeons should be alert to poor PROM scores at 6 months or small improvements in scores (for example, less than 2 points for knee pain VAS or less than 10.5 points for Oxford Knee Score), which signal a need for direct patient follow-up or expedited clinical review. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

What Is the Outcome of the First Revision Procedure of Primary THA for Osteoarthritis? A Study From the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry.

BACKGROUND: Joint arthroplasty registries traditionally report survivorship outcomes mainly on primary joint arthroplasty. The outcome of first revision procedures is less commonly reported, because large numbers of primary procedures are required to analyze a sufficient number of first revision procedures. Additionally, adequate linkage of primary procedures to revisions and mortality is required. When undertaking revision hip surgery, it is important for surgeons to understand the outcomes of these procedures to better inform patients. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: Using data from a large national joint registry, we asked: (1) What is the overall rate of revision of the first aseptic revision procedure for a primary THA? (2) Does the rate of revision of the first revision vary by the diagnosis for the first revision? (3) What is the mortality after the first revision, and does it vary by the reason for first revision? METHODS: The Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry longitudinally maintains data on all primary and revision joint arthroplasties, with nearly 100% capture. The analyses for this study were performed on primary THA procedures in patients with a diagnosis of osteoarthritis up to December 31, 2020, who had undergone subsequent revision. We excluded all primary THAs involving metal-on-metal and ceramic-on-metal bearing surfaces and prostheses with exchangeable necks because these designs may have particular issues associated with revisions, such as extensive soft tissue destruction, that are not seen with conventional bearings, making a comparative analysis of the first revision involving these bearing surfaces more complicated. Metal-on-metal bearing surfaces have not been used in Australia since 2017. We identified 17,046 first revision procedures from the above study population and after exclusions, included 13,713 first revision procedures in the analyses. The mean age at the first revision was 71 ± 11 years, and 55% (7496 of 13,713) of the patients were women. The median (IQR) time from the primary procedure to the first revision was 3 years (0.3 to 7.3), ranging from 0.8 years for the diagnosis of dislocation and instability to 10 years for osteolysis. There was some variation depending on the reason for the first revision. For example, patients undergoing revision for fracture were slightly older (mean age 76 ± 11 years) and patients undergoing revision for dislocation were more likely to be women (61% [2213 of 3620]). The registry has endeavored to standardize the sequence of revisions and uses a numerical approach to describe revision procedures. The first revision is the revision of a primary procedure, the second revision is the revision of the first revision, and so on. We therefore described the outcome of the first revision as the cumulative percent second revision. The outcome measure was the cumulative percent revision, which was defined using Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship to describe the time to the second revision. Hazard ratios from Cox proportional hazards models, adjusting for age and gender, were performed to compare the revision rates among groups. When possible, the cumulative percent second revision at the longest follow-up timepoint was determined with the available data, and when there were insufficient numbers, we used appropriate earlier time periods. RESULTS: The cumulative percent second revision at 18 years was 26% (95% confidence interval [CI] 24% to 28%). When comparing the outcome of the first revision by reason, prosthesis dislocation or instability had the highest rate of second revision compared with the other reasons for first revision. Dual-mobility prostheses had a lower rate of second revision for dislocation or instability than head sizes 32 mm or smaller and when compared to constrained prostheses after 3 months. There was no difference between dual-mobility prostheses and head sizes larger than 32 mm. There were no differences in the rate of second revision when first revisions for loosening, periprosthetic fracture, and osteolysis were compared. If cemented femoral fixation was performed at the time of the first revision, there was a higher cumulative percent second revision for loosening than cementless fixation from 6 months to 6 years, and after this time, there was no difference. The overall mortality after a first revision of primary conventional THA was 1% at 30 days, 2% at 90 days, 5% at 1 year, and 40% at 10 years. A first revision for periprosthetic fracture had the highest mortality at all timepoints compared with other reasons for the first revision. CONCLUSION: Larger head sizes and dual-mobility cups may help reduce further revisions for dislocation, and the use of cementless stems for a first revision for loosening seems advantageous. Surgeons may counsel patients about the higher risk of death after first revision procedures, particularly if the first revision is performed for periprosthetic fracture.Level of Evidence Level III, therapeutic study.

Reduced Revision Rates in Total Shoulder Arthroplasty With Crosslinked Polyethylene: Results From the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry.

BACKGROUND: Loss of glenoid fixation is a key factor affecting the survivorship of primary total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). It is not known whether the lower revision rates associated with crosslinked polyethylene (XLPE) compared with those of non-XLPE identified in hip and knee arthroplasty apply to shoulder arthroplasty. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We used data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) to compare the revision rates of primary stemmed anatomic TSA using XLPE to procedures using non-XLPE. In patients receiving a primary stemmed anatomic TSA for osteoarthritis, we asked: (1) Does the rate of revision or reason for revision vary between XLPE and non-XLPE all-polyethylene glenoid components? (2) Is there any difference in the revision rate when XLPE is compared with non-XLPE across varying head sizes? (3) Is there any difference in survival among prosthesis combinations with all-polyethylene glenoid components when they are used with XLPE compared with non-XLPE? METHODS: Data were extracted from the AOANJRR from April 16, 2004, to December 31, 2020. The AOANJRR collects data on more than 97% of joint replacements performed in Australia. The study population included all primary, stemmed, anatomic TSA procedures performed for osteoarthritis using all-polyethylene glenoid components. Procedures were grouped into XLPE and non-XLPE bearing surfaces for comparison. Of the 10,102 primary stemmed anatomic TSAs in the analysis, 39% (3942 of 10,102) used XLPE and 61% (6160 of 10,102) used non-XLPE. There were no differences in age, gender, or follow-up between groups. Revision rates were determined using Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship to describe the time to the first revision, with censoring at the time of death or closure of the database at the time of analysis. Revision was defined as removal, replacement, or addition of any component of a joint replacement. The unadjusted cumulative percent revision after the primary arthroplasty (with 95% confidence intervals [CIs]) was calculated and compared using Cox proportional hazard models adjusted for age, gender, fixation, and surgeon volume. Further analyses were performed stratifying according to humeral head size, and a prosthesis-specific analysis adjusted for age and gender was also performed. This analysis was restricted to prosthesis combinations that were used at least 150 times, accounted for at least four revisions, had XLPE and non-XLPE options available, and had a minimum of 3 years of follow-up. RESULTS: Non - XLPE had a higher risk of revision than XLPE after 1.5 years (HR 2.3 [95% CI 1.6 to 3.1]; p < 0.001). The cumulative percent revision at 12 years was 5% (95% CI 4% to 6%) for XLPE and 9% (95% CI 8% to 10%) for non-XLPE. There was no difference in the rate of revision for head sizes smaller than 44 mm. Non-XLPE had a higher rate of revision than XLPE for head sizes 44 to 50 mm after 2 years (HR 2.3 [95% CI 1.5 to 3.6]; p < 0.001) and for heads larger than 50 mm for the entire period (HR 2.2 [95% CI 1.4 to 3.6]; p < 0.001). Two prosthesis combinations fulfilled the inclusion criteria for the prosthesis-specific analysis. One had a higher risk of revision when used with non-XLPE compared with XLPE after 1.5 years (HR 3.7 [95% CI 2.2 to 6.3]; p < 0.001). For the second prosthesis combination, no difference was found in the rate of revision between the two groups. CONCLUSION: These AOANJRR data demonstrate that noncrosslinked, all-polyethylene glenoid components have a higher revision rate compared with crosslinked, all-polyethylene glenoid components when used in stemmed anatomic TSA for osteoarthritis. As polyethylene type is likely an important determinant of revision risk, crosslinked polyethylene should be used when available, particularly for head sizes larger than 44 mm. Further studies will need to be undertaken after larger numbers of shoulder arthroplasties have been performed to determine whether this reduction in revision risk associated with XLPE bears true for all TSA designs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty Revised for Instability: A Detailed Registry Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Instability after total knee arthroplasty is a common but poorly understood complication. METHODS: Data from a large national registry was used to study patient and prosthesis characteristics of 2605 total knee arthroplasty revisions for instability. The cumulative percent revision was calculated using Kaplan-Meier estimates, and Cox proportional models used to compare revision rates. The rate of further revision was analyzed with regard to prostheses used in the first revision. RESULTS: Instability increased from 6% of all first revision procedures in 2003 to 13% in 2019. The revision risk was lower for minimally stabilized prostheses, males, and patients aged ≥65 years. Polyethylene insert exchange was used for 55% of revision procedures, using a thicker insert in 93% and a change in insert conformity in 24% of cruciate-retaining knees. The increase in either thickness or conformity had no effect on the rate of further revision. After a revision for instability, 24% had a second revision by 14 years. Recurrent instability accounted for 32% of further revisions. A lower second revision rate was seen after revision of both femoral and tibial components, and where constrained components were used. CONCLUSION: Revision for instability is increasing. Revising both femoral and tibial components led to a lower rate of second revision compared to a change in insert alone. Recurrent instability was common.

Effect of Aspirin vs Enoxaparin on Symptomatic Venous Thromboembolism in Patients Undergoing Hip or Knee Arthroplasty: The CRISTAL Randomized Trial.

Importance: There remains a lack of randomized trials investigating aspirin monotherapy for symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis following total hip arthroplasty (THA) or total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Objective: To determine whether aspirin was noninferior to enoxaparin in preventing symptomatic VTE after THA or TKA. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cluster-randomized, crossover, registry-nested trial across 31 hospitals in Australia. Clusters were hospitals performing greater than 250 THA or TKA procedures annually. Patients (aged ≥18 years) undergoing hip or knee arthroplasty procedures were enrolled at each hospital. Patients receiving preoperative anticoagulation or who had a medical contraindication to either study drug were excluded. A total of 9711 eligible patients were enrolled (5675 in the aspirin group and 4036 in the enoxaparin group) between April 20, 2019, and December 18, 2020. Final follow-up occurred on August 14, 2021. Interventions: Hospitals were randomized to administer aspirin (100 mg/d) or enoxaparin (40 mg/d) for 35 days after THA and for 14 days after TKA. Crossover occurred after the patient enrollment target had been met for the first group. All 31 hospitals were initially randomized and 16 crossed over prior to trial cessation. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was symptomatic VTE within 90 days, including pulmonary embolism and deep venous thrombosis (DVT) (above or below the knee). The noninferiority margin was 1%. Six secondary outcomes are reported, including death and major bleeding within 90 days. Analyses were performed by randomization group. Results: Enrollment was stopped after an interim analysis determined the stopping rule was met, with 9711 patients (median age, 68 years; 56.8% female) of the prespecified 15 562 enrolled (62%). Of these, 9203 (95%) completed the trial. Within 90 days of surgery, symptomatic VTE occurred in 256 patients, including pulmonary embolism (79 cases), above-knee DVT (18 cases), and below-knee DVT (174 cases). The symptomatic VTE rate in the aspirin group was 3.45% and in the enoxaparin group was 1.82% (estimated difference, 1.97%; 95% CI, 0.54%-3.41%). This failed to meet the criterion for noninferiority for aspirin and was significantly superior for enoxaparin (P = .007). Of 6 secondary outcomes, none were significantly better in the enoxaparin group compared with the aspirin group. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients undergoing hip or knee arthroplasty for osteoarthritis, aspirin compared with enoxaparin resulted in a significantly higher rate of symptomatic VTE within 90 days, defined as below- or above-knee DVT or pulmonary embolism. These findings may be informed by a cost-effectiveness analysis. Trial Registration: ANZCTR Identifier: ACTRN12618001879257.