Lower Risk of Revision With 32- and 36-Millimeter Femoral Heads Compared With 28-mm Heads in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Comparative Single-Center Study (10,104 Hips).

BACKGROUND: We aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of different head sizes (28-, 32-, and 36- millimeter) in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) at mean 6 years follow-up (range, 1 to 17.5 years). METHODS: This was a retrospective consecutive study of primary THA at our institution (2003 to 2019). Demographic and surgical data were collected. The primary outcome measures were all-cause revision, revision for dislocation, and all-cause revision excluding dislocation. Continuous descriptive statistics used means, median values, ranges, and 95% confidence intervals, where appropriate. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used to estimate time to revision. Cox proportional hazard regression analyses were used to compare revision rates between the femoral head size groups. Adjustments were made for age at surgery, sex, primary diagnosis, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, articulation type, and fixation methods. There were 10,104 primary THAs included; median age was 69 years (range, 13 to 101) with 61.5% women. A posterior approach was performed in 71.6%. There were 3,295 hips with 28-mm heads (32.6%), 4,858 (48.1%) with 32-mm heads, and 1,951 (19.3%) with 36-mm heads. RESULTS: Overall rate of revision was 1.7% with the lowest rate recorded for the 36-mm group (2.7 versus 1.3 versus 1.1%). Cox regression analyses showed a decreased risk of all-cause revision for 32 and 36-mm head sizes as compared to 28-mm; this was statistically significant for the 32-mm group (P = .01). Risk of revision for dislocation was significantly reduced in both 32-mm (P = .03) and 36-mm (P = .03) head sizes. Analysis of all cause revision excluding dislocation showed no significant differences between head sizes. CONCLUSIONS: We found a significantly reduced risk of revision for all causes, but particularly revision for dislocation with larger head sizes. Concerns regarding increased risk of early revision for aseptic loosening, polyethylene wear, or taper corrosion with larger heads appear to be unfounded in this cohort of 10,104 patients with up to 17 years follow-up.

An Analysis of a National Administrative Dataset Demonstrating No Evidence of Increase in Elective Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty Dislocation Rates When Postoperative Hip Precautions are Not Used.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to determine whether there is a higher dislocation rate when postoperative hip precautions are not used for primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). METHODS: A survey was conducted of the hip precautions used by orthopaedic departments in England performing elective primary THA. From the responses to the survey an interrupted time series analysis was performed using the hospital admissions data from the Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) database during the period April 1, 2011 to December 31, 2019 and subsequent dislocations of these prostheses up to June 30, 2020. These were used to determine dislocations within 180 days of primary surgery and emergency readmissions within 30 days of discharge. RESULTS: Records were reviewed from 229,057 patients receiving primary, elective THA across 114 hospitals. In total, 1,807 (0.8%) dislocations were recorded within 180 days of surgery. There were 12,416 (5.4%) emergency readmissions within 30 days of surgery. Within hospitals where hip precautions were stopped, the proportion of patients having a dislocation was 0.8% both before and after stopping precautions, with a significant postintervention trend towards fewer dislocations (P < .001). There was also a significant immediate change in median length of stay from 4 to 3 days (P < .001) but no significant trend in the proportion of emergency readmissions within 30 days. CONCLUSION: There is no evidence of an increase in early dislocation or 30-day readmission rates after stopping traditional postoperative hip precautions in primary THA. Potential reductions in length of stay will reduce the risks associated with an extended hospital admission, improve service efficiency, and reduce costs.

The impact of a revision arthroplasty network on patient outcomes.

Aims: Revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) and revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) are complex procedures with higher rates of re-revision, complications, and mortality compared to primary TKA and THA. We report the effects of the establishment of a revision arthroplasty network (the East Midlands Specialist Orthopaedic Network; EMSON) on outcomes of rTKA and rTHA. Methods: The revision arthroplasty network was established in January 2015 and covered five hospitals in the Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire areas of the East Midlands of England. This comprises a collaborative weekly multidisciplinary meeting where upcoming rTKA and rTHA procedures are discussed, and a plan agreed. Using the Hospital Episode Statistics database, revision procedures carried out between April 2011 and March 2018 (allowing two-year follow-up) from the five network hospitals were compared to all other hospitals in England. Age, sex, and mean Hospital Frailty Risk scores were used as covariates. The primary outcome was re-revision surgery within one year of the index revision. Secondary outcomes were re-revision surgery within two years, any complication within one and two years, and median length of hospital stay. Results: A total of 57,621 rTHA and 33,828 rTKA procedures were performed across England, of which 1,485 (2.6%) and 1,028 (3.0%), respectively, were conducted within the network. Re-revision rates within one year for rTHA were 7.3% and 6.0%, and for rTKA were 11.6% and 7.4% pre- and postintervention, respectively, within the network. This compares to a pre-to-post change from 7.4% to 6.8% for rTHA and from 11.7% to 9.7% for rTKA for the rest of England. In comparative interrupted time-series analysis for rTKA there was a significant immediate improvement in one-year re-revision rates for the revision network compared to the rest of England (p = 0.024), but no significant change for rTHA (p = 0.504). For the secondary outcomes studied, there was a significant improvement in trend for one- and two-year complication rates for rTHA for the revision network compared to the rest of England. Conclusion: Re-revision rates for rTKA and complication rates for rTHA improved significantly at one and two years with the introduction of a revision arthroplasty network, when compared to the rest of England. Most of the outcomes studied improved to a greater extent in the network hospitals compared to the rest of England when comparing the pre- and postintervention periods.

Should patient age thresholds dictate fixation strategy in total hip arthroplasty?

AIMS: Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a very successful and cost-effective operation, yet debate continues about the optimum fixation philosophy in different age groups. The concept of the 'cementless paradox' and the UK 'Getting it Right First Time' initiative encourage increased use of cemented fixation due to purported lower revision rates, especially in elderly patients, and decreased cost. METHODS: In a high-volume, tertiary referral centre, we identified 10,112 THAs from a prospectively collected database, including 1,699 cemented THAs, 5,782 hybrid THAs, and 2,631 cementless THAs. The endpoint was revision for any reason. Secondary analysis included examination of implant survivorship in patients aged over 70 years, over 75 years, and over 80 years at primary THA. RESULTS: Cemented fixation had the lowest implant survival in all age groups, with a total ten-year survivorship of 97.0% (95% confidence interval (CI) 95.8 to 97.8) in the cemented group, 97.6% (95% CI 96.9 to 98.1) in the hybrid group, and 97.9% (95% CI 96.9 to 98.6) in the cementless group. This was not statistically significant (p = 0.092). There was no age group where cemented fixation outperformed hybrid or cementless fixation. CONCLUSION: While all fixation techniques performed well at long-term follow-up, cemented fixation was associated with the lowest implant survival in all age groups, including in more elderly patients. We recommend that surgeons should carefully monitor their own outcomes and use fixation techniques that they are familiar with, and deliver the best outcomes in their own hands. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(2):206-211.

High mortality following revision hip arthroplasty for periprosthetic femoral fracture.

AIMS: To determine mortality risk after first revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) for periprosthetic femoral fracture (PFF), and to compare this to mortality risk after primary and first revision THA for other common indications. METHODS: The study cohort consisted of THAs recorded in the National Joint Registry between 2003 and 2015, linked to national mortality data. First revision THAs for PFF, infection, dislocation, and aseptic loosening were identified. We used a flexible parametric model to estimate the cumulative incidence function of death at 90 days, one year, and five years following first revision THA and primary THA, in the presence of further revision as a competing risk. Analysis covariates were age, sex, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade. RESULTS: A total of 675,078 primary and 74,223 first revision THAs were included (of which 6,131 were performed for PFF). Following revision for PFF, mortality ranged from 9% at 90 days, 21% at one year, and 60% at five years in the highest risk group (males, ≥ 75 years, ASA ≥ 3) to 0.6%, 1.4%, and 5.5%, respectively, for the lowest risk group (females, < 75 years, ASA ≤ 2). Mortality was greater in all groups following first revision THA for PFF than for primary THA. Compared to mortality risk after first revision THA for infection, dislocation, or aseptic loosening, revision for PFF was associated with higher five-year mortality in all groups except males < 75 years with an ASA ≤ 2. CONCLUSION: Mortality risk after revision THA for PFF is high, reaching 60% at five years in the highest risk patient group. In comparison to other common indications for revision, PFF demonstrated the highest overall risk of mortality at five years. These estimates can be used in the surgical decision-making process and when counselling patients and carers regarding surgical risk. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(12):1670-1674.