Outcomes of Proximal Femoral Replacement for Nononcologic Indications in Australia.

Dislocation is one of the most common causes of a re-revision after a revision THA. Dual-mobility constructs and large femoral head bearings (≥ 36 mm) are known options for mitigating this risk. However, it is unknown which of these choices is better for reducing the risk of dislocation and all-cause re-revision surgery. It is also unknown whether there is a difference between dual-mobility constructs and large femoral head bearings according to the size of the acetabular component. We used data from a large national registry to ask: In patients undergoing revision THA for aseptic causes after a primary THA performed for osteoarthritis, (1) Does the proportion of re-revision surgery for prosthesis dislocation differ between revision THAs performed with dual-mobility constructs and those performed with large femoral head bearings? (2) Does the proportion of re-revision surgery for all aseptic causes differ between revision THAs performed with dual-mobility constructs and those performed with large femoral head bearings? (3) Is there a difference when the results are stratified by acetabular component size? Data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) were analyzed for 1295 first-revision THAs for aseptic causes after a primary THA performed for osteoarthritis. The study period was from January 2008-when the first dual-mobility prosthesis was recorded-to December 2019. There were 502 dual-mobility constructs and 793 large femoral head bearings. There was a larger percentage of women in the dual-mobility construct group (67% [334 of 502]) compared with the large femoral head bearing group (51% [402 of 793]), but this was adjusted for in the statistical analysis. Patient ages were similar for the dual-mobility construct group (67 ± 11 years) and the large femoral head group (65 ± 12 years). American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class and BMI distributions were similar. The mean follow-up was shorter for dual-mobility constructs at 2 ± 1.8 years compared with 4 ± 2.9 years for large femoral head bearings. The cumulative percent revision (CPR) was determined for a diagnosis of prosthesis dislocation as well as for all aseptic causes (excluding infection). Procedures using metal-on-metal bearings were excluded. The time to the re-revision was described using Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship, with right censoring for death or database closure at the time of analysis. The unadjusted CPR was estimated each year of the first 5 years for dual-mobility constructs and for each of the first 9 years for large femoral head bearings, with 95% confidence intervals using unadjusted pointwise Greenwood estimates. The apparent shorter follow-up of the dual-mobility construct group relates to the more recent increase in dual-mobility numbers recorded in the registry. The results were adjusted for age, gender, and femoral fixation. Results were subanalyzed for acetabular component sizes < 58 mm and ≥ 58 mm, set a priori on the basis of biomechanical and other registry data. There was no difference in the proportion of re-revision for prosthesis dislocation between dual-mobility constructs and large femoral head bearings (hazard ratio 1.22 [95% CI 0.70 to 2.12]; p = 0.49). At 5 years, the CPR of the re-revision for prosthesis dislocation was 4.0% for dual mobility constructs (95% CI 2.3% to 6.8%) and 4.1% for large femoral head bearings (95% CI 2.7% to 6.1%). There was no difference in the proportion of all aseptic-cause second revisions between dual-mobility constructs and large femoral head bearings (HR 1.02 [95% CI 0.76 to 1.37]; p = 0.89). At 5 years, the CPR of dual-mobility constructs was 17.6% for all aseptic-cause second revision (95% CI 12.6% to 24.3%) and 17.8% for large femoral head bearings (95% CI 14.9% to 21.2%). When stratified by acetabular component sizes less than 58 mm and at least 58 mm, there was no difference in the re-revision CPR for dislocation or for all aseptic causes between dual-mobility constructs and large femoral head bearings. Either dual-mobility constructs or large femoral head bearings can be used in revision THA, regardless of acetabular component size, as they did not differ in terms of re-revision rates for dislocation and all aseptic causes in this registry study. Longer term follow-up is required to assess whether complications develop with either implant or whether a difference in revision rates becomes apparent. Ongoing follow-up and comparison in a registry format would seem the best way to compare long-term complications and revision rates. Future studies should also compare surgeon factors and whether they influence decision-making between prosthesis options and second revision rates. Nested randomized controlled trials in national registries would seem a viable option for future research. Level III, therapeutic study.

Highlights of the 2021 American Joint Replacement Registry Annual Report.

A comparison of revision rates for stemmed and stemless primary anatomic shoulder arthroplasty with all-polyethylene glenoid components: analysis from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry

Large-head metal-on-metal (MoM) bearing hip replacements have been shown to have a much higher rate of revision than other bearing surfaces. However, small-head (≤ 32 mm) MoM bearing surfaces have been in use for many years with several reports of satisfactory mid- to long-term survivorship. It is unclear whether the long-term survival of small-head MoM devices will continue to be satisfactory or whether the same concerns seen with the large-head MoM devices will ultimately become more prevalent. We analyzed a large national registry to ask: (1) What is the 15-year Kaplan-Meier survivorship of primary conventional THA using small-head (≤ 32 mm) MoM bearing surfaces compared with large-head MoM bearing surfaces in primary THA? (2) Is there an increased rate of revision for adverse reaction to metal debris (ARMD) in this group of patients over time? The Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry longitudinally maintains data on all primary and revision joint arthroplasties with nearly 100% capture. We analyzed all conventional primary THAs performed from Registry inception in September 1999 until December 31, 2015, in patients with a diagnosis of osteoarthritis and using MoM bearing surfaces ≤ 32 mm in diameter, defined as small-head MoM. The study group included 4838 primary THA with ≤ 32-mm MoM bearing surfaces. There were 2506 (51.8%) male patients and the median age of patients undergoing THA with a small-head MoM bearing surface was 64 years (range, 20-92 years of age). The outcome measure was the cumulative percent revision defined as the time to first revision using Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship at 15 years; reasons for revision and type of revision were also examined. We specifically investigated whether there was an increased risk of revision for ARMD in this MoM group compared with all other bearing surfaces. We compared these results with large-head MoM THAs (femoral head size > 32 mm). The cumulative percent revision for small-head MoM designs at 15 years was 8.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.3-9.9). The cumulative percent revision for large-head MoM at 14 years was 27.4% (95% CI, 24.8-30.2). Prostheses with a large-head MoM articulation have a higher rate of revision than small-head MoM bearing surfaces (hazard ratio after 6 years, 5.14; 95% CI, 4.1-6.5; p < 0.001). Over time, there was a gradual increase in the diagnosis of ARMD for small-head MoM and the cumulative incidence of revision for ARMD was 0.8% at 15 years. Despite survival that is substantially greater than that of large-head MoM THAs, there has been a marked decrease in the use of small-head MoM designs in our registry. Although the reasons for this are likely multifactorial, the increasing incidence of revisions for ARMD among small-head MoM THAs is concerning. Level III, therapeutic study.

Concerns exist about the survival and complication rates of highly constrained total knee arthroplasty (TKA) prostheses. The aims of this study were to determine if there were differences between the revision and complication rates of fully stabilized (FSTKA) and hinged (HTKA) TKA, when used in both primary and revision procedures. Survivorship of all highly constrained TKA prostheses implanted over a 17 year period were analysed by the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. The primary outcome measure was time to first revision using Kaplan Meier estimates of survivorship. In the primary setting, the cumulative percent revision at 11 years was higher for HTKA than for FSTKA prostheses (P = 0.014). However, this finding was only significant for patient >75 years. In the revision setting, there were no differences in the revision rates for either category of prosthesis for any age group. For the indication of periarticular/periprosthetic fracture, HTKA resulted in a lower revision rate than FSTKA in both primary and revision cohorts. There were no differences in the rates of revision for infection and aseptic loosening for either prosthesis type in primary or revision settings. The revision risk for periprosthetic fracture was higher after HTKA prostheses. Both FSTKA and HTKA prostheses provide similar outcomes in primary and revision procedures except for the setting of periarticular/periprosthetic fracture, where a HTKA should be used. In elderly patients, a FSTKA prosthesis is recommended as the risk of periprosthetic fracture is higher with a HTKA.

BackgroundIncreasing evidence suggests a link between the bearing surface used in total hip arthroplasty (THA) and the occurrence of infection. It is postulated that polyethylene has immunomodulatory effects and may influence bacterial function and survival, thereby impacting the development of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). This study aimed to investigate the association between polyethylene type and revision surgery for PJI in THA using data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR). We hypothesized that the use of XLPE would demonstrate a statistically significant reduction in revision rates due to PJI compared to N-XLPE.MethodsData from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) spanning September 1, 1999, to December 31, 2021, were used to compare the infection revision rates between THA using N-XLPE and XLPE. We calculated the Cumulative Percentage Revision rate (CPR) and Hazard Ratio (HR) while controlling for factors like age, sex, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiologists’ (ASA) grade, and head size.ResultsFrom the total 361,083 primary THAs, 26,827 used N-XLPE and 334,256 used XLPE. Excluding data from the first 6 months post-surgery, 220 revisions occurred in the N-XLPE group and 1,055 in the XLPE group for PJI. The HR for infection revision was significantly higher in N-XLPE compared to XLPE, at 1.64 (95% CI, 1.41–1.90, p&lt;0.001).ConclusionsThis analysis provides evidence of an association between N-XLPE and revision for infection in THA. We suspect that polyethylene wear particles contribute to the susceptibility of THA to PJI, resulting in a significantly higher risk of revision for infection in N-XLPE hips compared to those with XLPE.Level of EvidenceTherapeutic Level III.

Background and purpose Despite concerns regarding a higher risk of revision, unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) continues to be used as an alternative to total knee arthroplasty (TKA). There are, however, limited data on the subsequent outcome when a UKA is revised. We examined the survivorship for primary UKA procedures that have been revised.Methods We used data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) to analyze the survivorship of 1,948 revisions of primary UKA reported to the Registry between September 1999 and December 2008. This was compared to the results of revisions of primary TKA reported during the same period where both the femoral and tibial components were revised. The Kaplan-Meier method for modeling survivorship was used.Results When a primary UKA was revised to another UKA (both major and minor revisions), it had a cumulative per cent revision (CPR) of 28 and 30 at 3 years, respectively. The CPR at 3 years when a UKA was converted to a TKA was 10. This is similar to the 3-year CPR (12) found earlier for primary TKA where both the femoral and tibial components were revised.Interpretation When a UKA requires revision, the best outcome is achieved when it is converted to a TKA. This procedure does, however, have a major risk of re-revision, which is similar to the risk of re-revision of a primary TKA that has had both the femoral and tibial components revised.

Purpose Here we describe some available statistical models and illustrate their use for analysis of arthroplasty registry data in the presence of the competing risk of death, when the influence of covariates on the revision rate may be different to the influence on the probability (that is, risk) of the occurrence of revision.Patients and methods Records of 12,525 patients aged 75–84 years who had received hemiarthroplasty for fractured neck of femur were obtained from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. The covariates whose effects we investigated were: age, sex, type of prosthesis, and type of fixation (cementless or cemented). Extensions of competing risk regression models were implemented, allowing the effects of some covariates to vary with time.Results The revision rate was significantly higher for patients with unipolar than bipolar prostheses (HR = 1.38, 95% CI: 1.01–1.89) or with monoblock than bipolar prostheses (HR = 1.45, 95% CI: 1.08–1.94). It was significantly higher for the younger age group (75–79 years) than for the older one (80–84 years) (HR = 1.28, 95% CI: 1.05–1.56) and higher for males than for females (HR = 1.37, 95% CI: 1.09–1.71). The probability of revision, after correction for the competing risk of death, was only significantly higher for unipolar prostheses than for bipolar prostheses, and higher for the younger age group. The effect of fixation type varied with time; initially, there was a higher probability of revision for cementless prostheses than for cemented prostheses, which disappeared after approximately 1.5 years.Interpretation When accounting for the competing risk of death, the covariates type of prosthesis and sex influenced the rate of revision differently to the probability of revision. We advocate the use of appropriate analysis tools in the presence of competing risks and when covariates have time-dependent effects.

In Reply

Background and purposeWe compared the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) and the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI) regarding patient, prosthesis, and procedure characteristics as well as revision rates for uncemented short-stem total hip arthroplasties (THAs).Patients and methodsAll THAs with an uncemented short-stemmed femoral component performed between 2009 and 2021 were included from the AOANJRR (n = 9,328) and the LROI (n = 3,352). Kaplan–Meier survival analyses and multivariable Schemper’s weighted Cox regression analyses with data from 2009–2021 and 2015–2021 were performed with overall revision as endpoint.ResultsIn Australia, the proportion of male patients (51% vs. 40%), patients with ASA III–IV score (30% vs. 3.7%), BMI ≥ 30.0 (39% vs. 19%), and femoral heads of 36 mm (58% vs. 20%) were higher than in the Netherlands. Short-stem THAs in Australia and the Netherlands had comparable 10-year revision rates (3.4%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.9–4.0 vs. 4.8%, CI 3.7–6.3). Multivariable Cox regression analyses with data from 2009–2021 showed a higher risk for revision of short-stem THAs performed in the Netherlands (HR 1.8, CI 1.1–2.8), whereas the risk for revision was comparable (HR 0.9, CI 0.5–1.7) when adjusted for more potential confounders using data from 2015–2021.ConclusionShort-stem THAs in Australia and the Netherlands have similar crude and adjusted revision rates, which are acceptable at 10 years of follow-up.

To the Editor, I read with great attention the paper entitled “Is the Survivorship of Birmingham Hip Resurfacing Better Than Selected Conventional Hip Arthroplasties in Men Younger Than 65 Years of Age? A Study from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry” [3] and I would like to make some comments. In this study, revisions were recorded as major or minor. Unfortunately, with the Birmingham hip resurfacing device, no minor revision was possible, as noticed by the authors. Indeed, minor revision is the replacement of a femoral head and liner, and major revision is the replacement of a component (cup or stem). The authors also discussed this point, but it would be logical to count only the total number of revisions without dividing them into minor or major. This would allow us to have a fair comparison that would reflect reality. Otherwise, it is obvious that the major revision rate of the Birmingham hip resurfacing prosthesis will always be much higher than in the THA group. The authors did not report the rate of dislocation [3]. We only know that the rate of instability after revision was 0% for the Birmingham hip resurfacing prosthesis versus 0.2% for the THA implant. Is this difference significant? The authors do not report it. Furthermore, could a hip dislocation that was reduced under general anesthesia not be considered a minor revision? A dislocation is always a serious complication for the patient and the surgeon. The authors do not discuss this point. The authors reported that the Birmingham hip resurfacing infection rate is lower than that observed with THA [3]. Indeed, two-stage re-implantation for the management of an infection after resurfacing is easier than that with a THA. Indeed, the cut of the femoral neck in the absence of a stem is identical to that after primary surgery with THA. In addition, hip resurfacing is less intrusive than THA, without extension into the femoral medullary space, and makes re-implantation of a THA stem very simple and secure in a healthy bone environment. Moreover, the biofilm surface area is smaller with resurfacing than with THA, and the intracapsular dead space is small [2]. Recently, some authors indicated that surgical debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention seems a more effective procedure for resurfacing than THA [1]. Another study showed that resurfacing of an infected hip seems to demonstrate better results and is a less-intrusive treatment than THA [2]. In this Australian national registry, it is possible to have mortality data. This would be very important in order to compare the two groups. Indeed, for the 4790 Birmingham hip resurfacing prostheses and the 2696 THA prostheses, the mortality rate is a major element of comparison for patients and surgeons. A registry must give recommendations for the choice of procedure and devices (cemented or uncemented THA or resurfacing) mainly based on implant survival [1].

Distal Femoral Replacement for Periprosthetic Fractures After TKA: Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry Review

Outcome of prosthesis matched and unmatched patella components in primary and revision total knee replacement

Higher Rate of Revision in PFC Sigma Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty With Mismatch of Femoro-Tibial Component Sizes

UK temporal trends for time from diagnosis of hip/knee osteoarthritis to joint replacement