In 2022, approximately 60% of inserted cups and stems in Sweden utilized cemented fixation. Two predominant brands, Refobacin Bone Cement R and Palacos R+G, both incorporating gentamicin, were employed in over 90% of primary cemented Total Hip Arthroplasties (THAs) between 2012 and 2022. This study investigates whether the choice between these cement types affects the risk of revision.

The five most frequently used cemented cups and the three most common stems were studied. Inclusion criteria encompassed hips with non-tumour diagnoses, operated through a direct lateral or posterior incision, featuring a 28–36 mm metal or ceramic head. Outcomes were assessed for cup revisions (n=55,457 Refobacin, 37,210 Palacos), stem revisions (n=51,732 Refobacin, 30,018 Palacos), and all-cemented THAs with either brand (n=45,265 Refobacin, 26,347 Palacos). Kaplan-Meier life tables and hazard ratios (HR) utilizing Cox regression were computed, adjusting for age, sex, diagnosis, implant type, femoral head size, and material.

Over a 10-year period, the cumulative percent revision with Refobacin was consistently higher than Palacos in all three analyses (cups: Refobacin 2.4 (2.3–2.5), Palacos 2.1 (2.0–2.2); stems: Refobacin 2.6 (2.5–2.7), Palacos 2.1 (2,0–2,2); all-cemented: Refobacin 3.2 (2.9–3.5), Palacos 2.9 (2.6–3.2)). Both unadjusted and adjusted HR were 13–25% lower with Palacos. In the analysis of all-cemented THAs, the adjusted HR for Palacos was 0.85 (0.76–0.95). Separating revisions into infectious and non-infectious reasons revealed a lower risk of infectious revisions with Palacos in all three analyses (all-cemented: adjusted HR infection 0.66 (0.56–0.78); non-infectious 1.10 (0.94–1.28)).

Hips cemented with Refobacin may face an increased risk of infection, potentially due to a smaller release of antibiotics into surrounding tissues. Unaccounted factors like different mixing systems or unknown biases could also influence outcomes, emphasizing the need for further investigation.

After a hip fracture, infections are common, but signs of infection resemble those of systemic inflammatory response to trauma and surgery, and conventional infection markers lack specificity. Plasma-calprotectin, a novel marker of neutrophil activation, has shown potential as an infection marker in ER and ICU settings.

To investigate if plasma-calprotectin is superior compared to conventional infection biomarkers after hip fracture.

Prospective cohort study of hip fracture patients admitted to our department. Calprotectin, procalcitonin (PCT), C-reactive protein (CRP), and white blood cell (WBC) count were measured in blood plasma upon admission and on day 3 post-surgery. Patients with infection (pneumonia, UTI, sepsis, SSI, other soft tissue infections) pre- or post-surgery were compared to a control group without infection within 30 days.

Statistics: Wilcoxon rank-sum test, medians with interquartile range, and area under the curve (AUC) with 95% confidence intervals.

Pilot study comprises calprotectin obtained at least once for 60 patients at admission and 48 on day 3. Mean age 84 years (SD 8.4), 65% women.

9/60 patients (23%) were admitted with infections. They had higher levels of CRP (median 111 [73-149]) and PCT (0.35 [0.18–0.86]) compared to the control group (29 [16-64], p=0.037; 0.10 [0.07–0.17], p=0.007). Calprotectin (2.67 vs 2.51) and WBC (12.2 vs 9.3) did not differ significantly. AUC was highest for PCT (0.79 [CI 0.60–0.97]), followed by CRP (0.71 [0.46–0.96]), WBC (0.60 [0.35–0.84]), and calprotectin (0.58, [0.33–0.83]).

Day 3, 6/48 (13%) had infections, without significant differences between groups in any marker. The median levels were: calprotectin 3.5 vs 3.1, CRP 172 vs 104, WBC 12 vs 9, PCT 0.16 vs 0.17. Calprotectin had highest AUC 0.68 (0.41–0.93, n.s.). AUC for WBC was 0.67 (0.31–1.00), CRP 0.66 (0.38–0.94), PCT 0.56 (0.29–0.82).

Preliminary data show no significant associations with postoperative infection for any of the studied biomarkers. However, plasma-calprotectin might perform slightly better compared to conventional markers.

Aims

Our primary aim was to assess reoperation-free survival at one year after the index injury in patients aged ≥ 75 years treated with internal fixation (IF) or arthroplasty for undisplaced femoral neck fractures (uFNFs). Secondary outcomes were reoperations and mortality analyzed separately.

In 1975, Sweden started registering primary knee replacement surgeries based on the personal identity number. Individual-based registrations of primary total hip replacements started in 1992 and for hemiarthroplasties the registration started in 2006. The completeness of these registrations is estimated at 98% during the last 10-year period. The long history and high completeness allow for accurate calculations of population-based prevalence of joint replacement and trends over time.

We used all data on primary joint replacements available in the Swedish Arthroplasty Register. The prevalence was calculated using number of alive patients with 1) at least one joint replacement 2) at least one hip replacement 3) at least one knee replacement at the end of each year from 2010 – 2021. Publicly available population numbers were retrieved from Statistics Sweden. We calculated total prevalence and prevalence per age in years.

By the end of 2021, 3.2% of the Swedish population had at least one hip or knee replacement. This was an increase from 2.5% in 2010. Among 80-year-old, the prevalence was 17.5% for any joint replacement. For both hip and knee replacement and all ages, the prevalence was higher for women. For knee replacement, the 2021 prevalence peaked at the age of 89 (9,4%) while the prevalence continuously increased with age for hip replacements.

A considerable proportion of the Swedish elderly population is living with at least one hip or knee replacement. The prevalence has increased during the last 12-year period for both hips and knees. An increasing prevalence may also affect the incidence of fractures and infections. Knowledge about the prevalence is fundamental for planning future demand for primary and revision hip and knee replacement.

Dislocation after total hip arthroplasty in individuals treated for acute hip fracture is up to 10 times more frequent than in elective patients. Whilst approach plays a role, the effect of head sizes in conventional THA and dual mobility cups (DMC) is less studied in fracture cases.

The total dislocation rate at 1-year and 3-year revision rates were recorded in this observational study on 8,031 patients with acute hip fracture, treated with a THA 2005–2014. Swedish Arthroplasty Register data were linked with the National Patient Register. Cox multivariable regression models were fitted to calculate adjusted hazard ratios stratified by approach and head size.

The cumulative risk of dislocation during year 1 was 2.7% (95% CI 2.2–3.2) with lateral approach and 8.3% (7.3–9.3) with posterior approach (KM estimates).

In the posterior approach group DMC was associated with a lower risk of dislocation compared to cTHA=32mm (HR=0.21; 0.07–0.68), whilst a head size <32mm carried a higher risk (HR=1.47; 1.10–1.98). These differences were no longer visible when revision in general was used as outcome.

Neither of the implant designs influenced the dislocation risk when direct lateral approach was used. Male gender and severe comorbidity increased the risk. DMC with lateral approach was associated with a reduced risk of revision in general (HR=0.36; 0.13–0.99). Head size did not influence the revision risk.

When aiming to reduce the risk of any dislocation, lateral approach – regardless of cup/head design – is referable. If, for any reason, posterior approach is used, DMC is associated with the lowest risk of dislocation. This is not reflected in analysing revision in general as outcome. An interpretation could be that there are different thresholds for dislocation prompting revision.

The Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register started in 1979 and celebrates its 40^th anniversary in 2019. The Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register is not primarily a device register or research database; we strive to provide an overall assessment of the care provided with a multidimensional approach, and to disseminate knowledge on best practices in our network of participating hospitals. Since the inception of the register, there has been a marked change in trends and outcomes.

The completeness of registrations has been 97–99% for primary THA, 93–95% for revisions, and 95–98% for HA over the last 10 years. The register contains 371,125 primary THAs, 55,893 HAs, 83,233 reoperations, and 408,110 PROM responses registered in 352,585 unique patients. All outcome measures have improved over time; primary THA has 0.71% 90-day mortality, 94.3% 10-year implant survival, and 2.2% 2-year reoperation rate. At 1-year follow up, 91% of the patients report a clinically significant pain reduction, 76% report a substantial improvement in health-related quality of life, and 89% are satisfied with the result of the operation.

Moving forward, we are developing enhanced online applications for surgeons, patients and the implant industry to access real-time information. This work involves constructing a shared decision-making tool that helps clinicians assessing the future benefits and risks of THA by offering individualized outcome predictions. Further steps forward include randomized clinical trials and nested studies through the registry's platform. The trends and changes in Swedish arthroplasty practice have largely been promoted and facilitated by the register over the last 40 years.