Aims. Radiotherapy is a well-known local treatment for spinal metastases. However, in the presence of postoperative systemic therapy, the efficacy of radiotherapy on local control (LC) and overall survival (OS) in patients with spinal metastases remains unknown. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of post-surgical radiotherapy for spinal metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients, and to identify factors correlated with LC and OS. Methods. A retrospective, single-centre review was conducted of patients with spinal metastases from NSCLC who underwent surgery followed by systemic therapy at our institution from January 2018 to September 2022. Kaplan-Meier analysis and log-rank tests were used to compare the LC and OS between groups. Associated factors for LC and OS were assessed using Cox proportional hazards regression analysis. Results. Overall, 123 patients with 127 spinal metastases from NSCLC who underwent decompression surgery followed by postoperative systemic therapy were included. A total of 43 lesions were treated with stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) after surgery and 84 lesions were not. Survival rate at one, two, and three years was 83.4%, 58.9%, and 48.2%, respectively, and LC rate was 87.8%, 78.8%, and 78.8%, respectively. Histological type was the only significant associated factor for both LC (p = 0.007) and OS (p < 0.001). Treatment with targeted therapy was significantly associated with longer survival (p = 0.039). The risk factors associated with worse survival were abnormal laboratory data (p = 0.021), lesions located in the thoracic spine (p = 0.047), and lumbar spine (p = 0.044). This study also revealed that postoperative radiotherapy had little effect in improving OS or LC. Conclusion. Tumour histological type was significantly associated with the prognosis in spinal NSCLC metastasis patients. In the presence of post-surgical systemic therapy, radiotherapy appeared to be less effective in improving LC, OS, or quality of life in spinal NSCLC metastasis patients. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(4):350–360

Aims. Hip fractures are some of the most common fractures encountered in orthopaedic practice. We aimed to identify whether perioperative hypotension is a predictor of 30-day mortality, and to stratify patient groups that would benefit from closer monitoring and early intervention. While there is literature on intraoperative blood pressure, there are limited studies examining pre- and postoperative blood pressure. Methods. We conducted a prospective observational cohort study over a one-year period from December 2021 to December 2022. Patient demographic details, biochemical results, and haemodynamic observations were taken from electronic medical records. Statistical analysis was conducted with the Cox proportional hazards model, and the effects of independent variables estimated with the Wald statistic. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were estimated with the log-rank test. Results. A total of 528 patients were identified as suitable for inclusion. On multivariate analysis, postoperative hypotension of a systolic blood pressure (SBP) < 90 mmHg two to 24 hours after surgery showed an increased hazard ratio (HR) for 30-day mortality (HR 4.6 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.3 to 8.9); p < 0.001) and was an independent risk factor accounting for sex (HR 2.7 (95% CI 1.4 to 5.2); p = 0.003), age (HR 1.1 (95% CI 1.0 to 1.1); p = 0.016), American Society of Anesthesiologists grade (HR 2.7 (95% CI 1.5 to 4.6); p < 0.001), time to theatre > 24 hours (HR 2.1 (95% CI 1.1 to 4.2); p = 0.025), and preoperative anaemia (HR 2.3 (95% CI 1.0 to 5.2); p = 0.043). A preoperative SBP of < 120 mmHg was close to achieving significance (HR 1.9 (95% CI 0.99 to 3.6); p = 0.052). Conclusion. Our study is the first to demonstrate that postoperative hypotension within the first 24 hours is an independent risk factor for 30-day mortality after hip fracture surgery. Clinicians should recognize patients who have a SBP of < 90 mmHg in the early postoperative period, and be aware of the increased mortality risk in this specific cohort who may benefit from a closer level of monitoring and early intervention. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(2):189–194

Aims. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is the preferred treatment for anterior medial knee osteoarthritis (OA) owing to the rapid postoperative recovery. However, the risk factors for UKA failure remain controversial. Methods. The clinical data of Oxford mobile-bearing UKAs performed between 2011 and 2017 with a minimum follow-up of five years were retrospectively analyzed. Demographic, surgical, and follow-up data were collected. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to identify the risk factors that contribute to UKA failure. Kaplan-Meier survival was used to compare the effect of the prosthesis position on UKA survival. Results. A total of 407 patients who underwent UKA were included in the study. The mean age of patients was 61.8 years, and the mean follow-up period of the patients was 91.7 months. The mean Knee Society Score (KSS) preoperatively and at the last follow-up were 64.2 and 89.7, respectively (p = 0.001). Overall, 28 patients (6.9%) with UKA underwent revision due to prosthesis loosening (16 patients), dislocation (eight patients), and persistent pain (four patients). Cox proportional hazards model analysis identified malposition of the prostheses as a high-risk factor for UKA failure (p = 0.007). Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed that the five-year survival rate of the group with malposition was 85.1%, which was significantly lower than that of the group with normal position (96.2%; p < 0.001). Conclusion. UKA constitutes an effective method for treating anteromedial knee OA, with an excellent five-year survival rate. Aseptic loosening caused by prosthesis malposition was identified as the main cause of UKA failure. Surgeons should pay close attention to prevent the potential occurrence of this problem. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(12):914–922

Open debridement and Outerbridge and Kashiwagi debridement arthroplasty (OK procedure) are common surgical treatments for elbow arthritis. However, the literature contains little information on the long-term survivorship of these procedures. The purpose of this study was to determine the survivorship after elbow debridement techniques until conversion to total elbow arthroplasty and revision surgery. We performed a retrospective chart review of patients who underwent open elbow surgical debridement (open debridement, OK procedure) between 2000 and 2015. Patients were diagnosed with primary elbow osteoarthritis, post-traumatic arthritis, or inflammatory arthritis. A total of 320 patients had primary surgery including open debridement (n=142) and OK procedure (n=178), and of these 33 patients required a secondary revision surgery (open debridement, n=14 and OK procedure, n=19). The average follow-up time was 11.5 years (5.5 - 21.5 years). Survivorship was analyzed with Kaplan-Meier curves and Log Rank test. A Cox proportional hazards model was used assess the likelihood of conversion to total elbow arthroplasty or revision surgery while adjusting for covariates (age, gender, diagnosis). Significance was set p<0.05. Kaplan-Meier survival curves showed open debridement was 100.00% at 1 year, 99.25% at 5 years, and 98.49% at 10 years and for OK procedure 100.00% at 1 year, 98.80% at 5 years, 97.97% at 10 years (p=0.87) for conversion to total elbow arthroplasty. There was no difference in survivorship between procedures after adjusting for significant covariates with the cox proportional hazard model. The rate of revision for open debridement and OK procedure was similar at 11.31% rand 11.48% after 10 years respectively. There were higher rates of revision surgery in patients with open debridement (hazard ratio, 4.84 CI 1.29 – 18.17, p = 0.019) compared to OK procedure after adjusting for covariates. We also performed a stratified analysis with radiographic severity as an effect modifier and showed grade 3 arthritis did better with the OK procedure compared to open debridement for survivorship until revision surgery (p=0.05). However, this difference was not found for grade 1 or grade 2 arthritis. This may suggest that performing the OK procedure for more severe grade 3 arthritis could decrease reoperation rates. Further investigations are needed to better understand the indications for each surgical technique. This study is the largest cohort of open debridement and OK procedure with long term follow-up. We showed that open elbow debridement and the OK procedure have excellent survivorship until conversion to total elbow arthroplasty and are viable options in the treatment of primary elbow osteoarthritis and post traumatic cases. The OK procedure also has lower rates of revision surgery than open debridement, especially with more severe radiographic arthritis

Open debridement and Outerbridge and Kashiwagi debridement arthroplasty (OK procedure) are common surgical treatments for elbow arthritis. However, the literature contains little information on the long-term survivorship of these procedures. The purpose of this study was to determine the survivorship after elbow debridement techniques until conversion to total elbow arthroplasty and revision surgery. We performed a retrospective chart review of patients who underwent open elbow surgical debridement (open debridement, OK procedure) between 2000 and 2015. Patients were diagnosed with primary elbow osteoarthritis, post-traumatic arthritis, or inflammatory arthritis. A total of 320 patients had primary surgery including open debridement (n=142) and OK procedure (n=178), and of these 33 patients required a secondary revision surgery (open debridement, n=14 and OK procedure, n=19). The average follow-up time was 11.5 years (5.5 - 21.5 years). Survivorship was analyzed with Kaplan-Meier curves and Log Rank test. A Cox proportional hazards model was used assess the likelihood of conversion to total elbow arthroplasty or revision surgery while adjusting for covariates (age, gender, diagnosis). Significance was set p<0.05. Kaplan-Meier survival curves showed open debridement was 100.00% at 1 year, 99.25% at 5 years, and 98.49% at 10 years and for OK procedure 100.00% at 1 year, 98.80% at 5 years, 97.97% at 10 years (p=0.87) for conversion to total elbow arthroplasty. There was no difference in survivorship between procedures after adjusting for significant covariates with the cox proportional hazard model. The rate of revision for open debridement and OK procedure was similar at 11.31% rand 11.48% after 10 years respectively. There were higher rates of revision surgery in patients with open debridement (hazard ratio, 4.84 CI 1.29 - 18.17, p = 0.019) compared to OK procedure after adjusting for covariates. We also performed a stratified analysis with radiographic severity as an effect modifier and showed grade 3 arthritis did better with the OK procedure compared to open debridement for survivorship until revision surgery (p=0.05). However, this difference was not found for grade 1 or grade 2 arthritis. This may suggest that performing the OK procedure for more severe grade 3 arthritis could decrease reoperation rates. Further investigations are needed to better understand the indications for each surgical technique. This study is the largest cohort of open debridement and OK procedure with long term follow-up. We showed that open elbow debridement and the OK procedure have excellent survivorship until conversion to total elbow arthroplasty and are viable options in the treatment of primary elbow osteoarthritis and post traumatic cases. The OK procedure also has lower rates of revision surgery than open debridement, especially with more severe radiographic arthritis

Aims. This study evaluates the association between consultant and hospital volume and the risk of re-revision and 90-day mortality following first-time revision of primary hip arthroplasty for aseptic loosening. Methods. We conducted a cohort study of first-time, single-stage revision hip arthroplasties (RHAs) performed for aseptic loosening and recorded in the National Joint Registry (NJR) data for England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the Isle of Man between 2003 and 2019. Patient identifiers were used to link records to national mortality data, and to NJR data to identify subsequent re-revision procedures. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard models with restricted cubic splines were used to define associations between volume and outcome. Results. Among 12,961 RHAs there were 513 re-revisions within two years, and 95 deaths within 90 days of surgery. The risk of re-revision was highest for a consultant’s first RHA (hazard ratio (HR) 1.56 (95% CI 1.15 to 2.12)) and remained significantly elevated for their first 24 cases (HR 1.26 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.58)). Annual consultant volumes of five/year were associated with an almost 30% greater risk of re-revision (HR 1.28 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.64)) and 80% greater risk of 90-day mortality (HR 1.81 (95% CI 1.02 to 3.21)) compared to volumes of 20/year. RHAs performed at hospitals which had cumulatively undertaken fewer than 167 RHAs were at up to 70% greater risk of re-revision (HR 1.70 (95% CI 1.12 to 2.59)), and those having undertaken fewer than 307 RHAs were at up to three times greater risk of 90-day mortality (HR 3.05 (95% CI 1.19 to 7.82)). Conclusion. This study found a significantly higher risk of re-revision and early postoperative mortality following first-time single-stage RHA for aseptic loosening when performed by lower-volume consultants and at lower-volume institutions, supporting the move towards the centralization of such cases towards higher-volume units and surgeons. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(10):1050–1058

Aims. The aim of this study was to describe the pattern of revision indications for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and any change to this pattern for UKA patients over the last 20 years, and to investigate potential associations to changes in surgical practice over time. Methods. All primary knee arthroplasty surgeries performed due to primary osteoarthritis and their revisions reported to the Danish Knee Arthroplasty Register from 1997 to 2017 were included. Complex surgeries were excluded. The data was linked to the National Patient Register and the Civil Registration System for comorbidity, mortality, and emigration status. TKAs were propensity score matched 4:1 to UKAs. Revision risks were compared using competing risk Cox proportional hazard regression with a shared γ frailty component. Results. Aseptic loosening (loosening) was the most common revision indication for both UKA (26.7%) and TKA (29.5%). Pain and disease progression accounted for 54.6% of the remaining UKA revisions. Infections and instability accounted for 56.1% of the remaining TKA revision. The incidence of revision due to loosening or pain decreased over the last decade, being the second and third least common indications in 2017. There was a decrease associated with fixation method for pain (hazard ratio (HR) 0.40; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 0.94) and loosening (HR 0.29; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.81) for cementless compared to cemented, and units UKA usage for pain (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.91), and loosening (HR 0.51; 95% CI 0.37 to 0.70) for high usage. Conclusion. The overall revision patterns for UKA and TKA for the last 20 years are comparable to previous published patterns. We found large changes to UKA revision patterns in the last decade, and with the current surgical practice, revision due to pain or loosening are significantly less likely. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(12):923–931

Aims. Although there are various pelvic osteotomies for acetabular dysplasia of the hip, shelf operations offer effective and minimally invasive osteotomy. Our study aimed to assess outcomes following modified Spitzy shelf acetabuloplasty. Methods. Between November 2000 and December 2016, we retrospectively evaluated 144 consecutive hip procedures in 122 patients a minimum of five years after undergoing modified Spitzy shelf acetabuloplasty for acetabular dysplasia including osteoarthritis (OA). Our follow-up rate was 92%. The mean age at time of surgery was 37 years (13 to 58), with a mean follow-up of 11 years (5 to 21). Advanced OA (Tönnis grade ≥ 2) was present preoperatively in 16 hips (11%). The preoperative lateral centre-edge angle ranged from -28° to 25°. Survival was determined by Kaplan-Meier analysis, using conversions to total hip arthroplasty as the endpoint. Risk factors for joint space narrowing less than 2 mm were analyzed using a Cox proportional hazards model. Results. The mean Merle d'Aubigné clinical score improved from 11.6 points (6 to 17) preoperatively to 15.9 points (12 to 18) at the last follow-up. The survival rates were 95% (95% confidence interval (CI) 91 to 99) and 86% (95% CI 50 to 97) at ten and 15 years. Multivariate Cox regression identified three factors associated with radiological OA progression: age (hazard ratio (HR) 2.85, 95% CI 1.05 to 7.76; p = 0.0398), preoperative joint space (HR 2.41, 95% CI 1.35 to 4.29; p = 0.0029), and preoperative OA (HR 8.34, 95% CI 0.94 to 73.77; p = 0.0466). Conclusion. Modified Spitzy shelf acetabuloplasty is an effective joint-preserving surgery with a wide range of potential indications. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(12):932–941

We compared the rate of revision of two classes of primary anatomic shoulder arthroplasty, stemmed (aTSA) and stemless (sTSA) undertaken with cemented all polyethylene glenoid components. A large national arthroplasty registry identified two cohort groups for comparison, aTSA and sTSA between 1. st. January 2011 and 31. st. December 2020. A sub-analysis from 1 January 2017 captured additional patient demographics. The cumulative percentage revision (CPR) was determined using Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship and hazard ratios (HR) from Cox proportional hazard models adjusted for age and gender. Of the 7,533 aTSA procedures, the CPR at 8 years was 5.3% and for 2,567 sTSA procedures was 4.0%. There was no difference in the risk of revision between study groups (p=0.128). There was an increased risk of revision for aTSA and sTSA undertaken with humeral head sizes <44mm (p=0.006 and p=0.002 respectively). Low mean surgeon volume (MSV) (<10 cases per annum) was a revision risk for aTSA (p=0.033) but not sTSA (p=0.926). For primary diagnosis osteoarthritis since 2017, low MSV was associated with an increased revision risk for aTSA vs sTSA in the first year (p=0.048). Conversely, low MSV was associated with a decreased revision risk for sTSA in the first 6 months (p<0.001). Predominantly aTSA was revised for loosening (28.8%) and sTSA for instability/dislocation (40.6%). Revision risk of aTSA and sTSA was associated with humeral head size and mean surgeon volume but not patient characteristics. Inexperienced shoulder arthroplasty surgeons experience lower early revision rates with sTSA in the setting of osteoarthritis. Revision of aTSA and sTSA occurred for differing reasons

Introduction. Despite the increasing numbers of ankle replacements that are being performed there are still limited studies on the survival of ankle replacements and comparisons between different implants. The primary aim of this study is to link NJR data with NHS digital data to determine the true failure rates of ankle replacements. Secondary outcomes include analysis risk factors for failure, patient demographics and outcomes of individual prosthesis. Methods. A data linkage study combined National Joint Registry Data and NHS Digital data. The primary outcome of failure is defined as the removal or exchange of any components of the implanted device inserted during ankle replacement surgery. Life tables and Kaplan Meier survival charts demonstrated survivorship. Cox proportional hazards regression models with the Breslow method used for ties were fitted to compare failure rates. Results. 5,562 primary ankle replacement were recorded on the NJR. The 1-year survivorship was 98.8% (95% CI 98.4%–99.0%), 5-year survival in 2725 patients was 90.2% (95% CI 89.2%–91.1%), and 10-year survival in 199 patients was 86.2% (95% CI 84.6%–87.6%). When using a Cox regression model for all implants with over 100 implantations using the Infinity as the reference, only the Star (Hazard ratio 1.60 95% CI 0.87–2.96) and Inbone (HR 0.38 95% CI 0.05–2.84) did not produce significantly worse survivorship. Conclusion. Ankle replacements have increased in numbers over the past decade, and the currently used implants have lower failure rates than older prosthesis. It is expected that in the future the outcomes of ankle replacements will continue to improve

Hip fracture patients are vulnerable to delirium. This study examined the associations between delirium and outcomes including mortality, length of stay, post-discharge care requirements, and readmission. This cohort study collected validated healthcare data for all hip fracture patients aged ≥50 years that presented to a high-volume centre between March 2020-November 2021. Variables included: demographics, delirium status, COVID-19 status, treatment factors, and outcome measures. Wilcoxon rank sum or Chi-squared tests were used for baseline differences, Cox proportional hazard regression for mortality, logistic regression for post-discharge care requirements and readmission, and linear regression for length of stay. Analyses were adjusted for age, sex, deprivation, pre-fracture residence type and COVID-19. There were 1822 patients (mean age 81 years; 72% female) of which 496/1822 (27.2%) had delirium (4AT score ≥4). Of 371/1822 (20.4%) patients that died within 180 days of admission, 177/371 (47.7%) had delirium during the acute stay. Delirium was associated with an increased 30- and 180-day mortality risk (adjusted HR 1.74 (95%CI 1.15-2.64; p=0.009 and 1.74 (1.36-2.22; p<0.001), respectively), ten day longer total inpatient stay [adj. B.coef 9.80 (standard error 2.26); p<0.001] and three-fold greater odds of higher care requirements on discharge [Odds Ratio 3.07 (95% Confidence Interval 2.27-4.15; p<0.001)]. More than a quarter of patients had delirium during the hip fracture stay, and this was independently associated with increased mortality, longer length of stay, and higher post-discharge care requirements. These findings are relevant for prognostication and service planning, and emphasise the importance of effective delirium screening and evidence-based interventions in this vulnerable population

The 2021 Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry report indicated that total shoulder replacement using both mid head (TMH) length humeral components and reverse arthroplasty (RTSA) had a lower revision rate than stemmed humeral components in anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) - for all prosthesis types and diagnoses. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of component variables in the various primary total arthroplasty alternatives for osteoarthritis in the shoulder. Data from a large national arthroplasty registry were analysed for the period April 2004 to December 2020. The study population included all primary aTSA, RTSA, and TMH shoulder arthroplasty procedures undertaken for osteoarthritis (OA) using either cross-linked polyethylene (XLPE) or non-cross-linked polyethylene (non XLPE). Due to the previously documented and reported higher revision rate compared to other anatomical total shoulder replacement options, those using a cementless metal backed glenoid components were excluded. The rate of revision was determined by Kaplan-Meir estimates, with comparisons by Cox proportional hazard models. Reasons for revision were also assessed. For a primary diagnosis of OA, aTSA with a cemented XLPE glenoid component had the lowest revision rate with a 12-year cumulative revision rate of 4.7%, compared to aTSA with cemented non-XLPE glenoid component of 8.7%, and RTSA of 6.8%. The revision rate for TMH was lower than aTSA with cemented non-XLPE, but was similar to the other implants at the same length of follow-up. The reason for revision for cemented aTSR was most commonly component loosening, not rotator cuff deficiency. Long stem humeral components matched with XLPE in aTSA achieve a lower revision rate compared to shorter stems, long stems with conventional polyethylene, and RTSA when used to treat shoulder OA. In all these cohorts, loosening, not rotator cuff failure was the most common diagnosis for revision

Strategy regarding patella resurfacing in total knee replacement (TKR) remains controversial. TKR revision rates are reportedly influenced by surgeon procedure volume. The study aim was to compare revision outcomes of TKR with and without patella resurfacing in different surgeon volume groups using data from the AOANJRR. The study population included 571,149 primary TKRs for osteoarthritis. Surgeons were classified as low, medium, or high-volume based on the quartiles of mean primary TKR volume between 2011 and 2020. Cumulative percent revision (CPR) using Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship were calculated for the three surgeon volume groups with and without patella resurfacing. Cox proportional hazards models, adjusted for age and sex, were used to compare revision risks. High-volume surgeons who did not resurface the patella had the highest all-cause CPR (20-year CPR 10.9%, 95% CI [10.0%, 12.0%]). When the patella was resurfaced, high-volume surgeons had the lowest revision rate (7.3%, 95% CI [6.4%, 8.4%]). When the high-volume groups were compared there was a higher rate of revision for the non-resurfaced group after 6 months. When the medium-volume surgeon groups were compared, not resurfacing the patella also was associated with a higher rate of revision after 3 months. The low-volume comparisons showed an initial higher rate of revision with patella resurfacing, but there was no difference after 3 months. When only patella revisions were considered, there were higher rates of revision in all three volume groups where the patella was not resurfaced. TKR performed by high and medium-volume surgeons without patella resurfacing had higher revision rates compared to when the patella was resurfaced. Resurfacing the patella in the primary procedure protected against revision for patella reasons in all surgeon volume groups. Level of evidence: III (National registry analysis)

The Accolade®TMZF is a taper-wedge cementless metaphyseal coated femoral stem widely utilized from 2002-2012. In recent years, there have been reports of early catastrophic failure of this implant. Establishing a deeper understanding of the rate and causes of revision in patients who developed aseptic failure in stems with documented concerns about high failure rates is critical. Understanding any potential patient or implant factors which are risk factors for failure is important to inform both clinicians and patients. We propose a study to establish the long-term survival of this stem and analyze patients who underwent aseptic revision to understand the causes and risk factors for failure. A retrospective review was undertaken of all patients who received a primary total hip arthroplasty with an Accolade® TMZF stem at a high-volume arthroplasty center. The causes and timing of revision surgery were documented and cross referenced with the Canadian Institute of Health Information Discharge Abstract Database to minimize loss to follow-up. Survivorship analysis was performed with use of the Kaplan-Meier curves to determine the overall and aseptic survival rates at final follow-up. Patient and implant factors commonly associated with aseptic failure were extracted and Cox proportional hazards model was used. A consecutive series of 2609 unilateral primary THA patients implanted with an Accolade®TMZF femoral hip stem were included. Mean time from primary surgery was 12.4 years (range 22 days to 19.5 years). Cumulative survival was 96.1% ± 0.2 at final follow-up. One hundred and seven patients underwent revision surgery with aseptic loosening of the femoral component was the most common cause of aseptic failure in this cohort (33/2609, 1.3%). Younger age and larger femoral head offset were independent risk factors for aseptic failure. To our knowledge, this is the largest series representing the longest follow-up of this taper-wedge cementless femoral implant. Despite early concerns, the Accolade® TMZF stem has excellent survivorship in this cohort. Trunnionosis as a recognized cause for revision surgery was rare. Younger age and larger femoral head offset were independent risk factors for aseptic failure

Instability is a common indication for revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). However, even after the initial revision, some patients continue to have recurrent dislocations. This study investigates those at risk for recurrent dislocation after revision THA for instability at a single institution. Between 2009 and 2019, 163 patients underwent revision THA for instability at a single institution. Thirty-three of these patients required re-revision THA due to recurrent dislocation. Cox proportional hazard models with death as a competing event were used to analyze risk factors, including prosthesis sizing and alignment. Paired t-tests or Wilcoxon signed rank tests were used to assess patient outcomes (Veterans RAND 12 (VR-12) physical score, VR-12 mental score, Harris Hip Score, and hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score for joint replacement). Duration of follow-up until either re-revision or final follow-up was a mean of 45.3 ± 38.2 months. The 1-year cumulative incidence for recurrent dislocation after revision was 8.7%, which increased to 19.6% at 5 years and 32.9% at 10 years postoperatively. In the multivariable analysis, high ASA score [HR 2.71], being underweight (BMI<18 kg/m. 2. ) [HR 36.26] or overweight/obese (BMI>25 kg/m. 2. ) [HR 4.31], use of specialized liners [HR 5.51–10.71], lumbopelvic stiffness [HR 6.29], and postoperative abductor weakness [HR 7.20] were significant risk factors for recurrent dislocation. Increasing the cup size decreased the dislocation risk [HR 0.89]. The dual mobility construct did not affect the risk for recurrent dislocation in univariate or multivariable analyses. VR-12 physical and HHS (pain and function) scores improved postoperatively at midterm. Patients requiring revision THA for instability are at risk for recurrent dislocation. Higher ASA scores, abnormal BMI, use of special liners, lumbopelvic stiffness, and postoperative abductor weakness are significant risk factors for re-dislocation

This study evaluates the association between consultant and hospital volume and the risk of re-revision and 90-day mortality following first-time revision of primary hip replacement for aseptic loosening. We conducted a cohort study of first-time, single-stage revision hip replacements (RHR) performed for aseptic loosening and recorded in the National Joint Registry (NJR) data for England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the Isle of Man between 2003 and 2019. Patient identifiers were used to link records to national mortality data, and to NJR data to identify subsequent re-revision procedures. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard models with restricted cubic splines were used to define associations between volume and outcome. Among 12,676 RHR there were 513 re-revisions within two years, and 95 deaths within 90 days of surgery. The risk of re-revision was highest for a consultant's first RHR (Hazard Ratio (HR) 1·58 (95%CI 1·16 to 2·15)) and remained significantly elevated for their first 26 cases (HR 1·26 (95%CI 1·00 to 1·58)). Annual consultant volumes of five/year were associated with an almost 30% greater risk of re-revision (HR 1·28 (95%CI 1·00 to 1·64)) and 80% greater risk of 90-day mortality (HR 1·81 (95%CI 1·02 to 3·21)) compared to volumes of 20/year. RHR performed at hospitals which had cumulatively undertaken fewer than 168 RHR were at up to 70% greater risk of re-revision (HR 1·70 (95% CI 1·12 to 2·60)), and those having undertaken fewer than 309 RHR were at up to three times greater risk of 90-day mortality (HR 3·06 (95% CI 1·19 to 7·86)). This study found a significantly higher risk of re-revision and early postoperative mortality following first-time single-stage RHR for aseptic loosening when performed by lower-volume consultants and at lower-volume institutions, supporting the move towards the centralisation of such cases towards higher-volume units and surgeons

Increasing femoral offset in total hip replacement (THR) has several benefits including improved hip abductor strength and enhanced range of motion. Biomechanical studies have suggested that this may negatively impact on stem stability. However, it is unclear whether this has a clinical impact. Using data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR), the aim of this study was to determine the impact of stem offset and stem size for the three most common cementless THR prostheses revised for aseptic loosening. The study period was September 1999 to December 2020. The study population included all primary procedures for osteoarthritis with a cementless THR using the Corail, Quadra-H and Polarstem. Procedures were divided into small and large stem sizes and by standard and high stem offset for each stem system. Hazard ratios (HR) from Cox proportional hazards models, adjusting for age and gender, were performed to compare revision for aseptic loosening for offset and stem size for each of the three femoral stems. There were 55,194 Corail stems, 13,642 Quadra-H stem, and 13,736 Polarstem prostheses included in this study. For the Corail stem, offset had an impact only when small stems were used (sizes 8-11). Revision for aseptic loosening was increased for the high offset stem (HR=1.90;95% CI 1.53–2.37;p<0.001). There was also a higher revision risk for aseptic loosening for high offset small size Quadra-H stems (sizes 0-3). Similar to the Corail stem, offset did not impact on the revision risk for larger stems (Corail sizes 12-20, Quadra-H sizes 4-7). The Polarstem did not show any difference in aseptic loosening revision risk when high and standard offset stems were compared, and this was irrespective of stem size. High offset may be associated with increased revision for aseptic loosening, but this is both stem size and prosthesis specific

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is an effective treatment for symptomatic hip osteoarthritis (OA). Computer-navigation technologies in total knee arthroplasty show evidence-supported survivorship advantages and are used widely. The aim of this study was to determine the revision outcome of hip commercially available navigation technologies. Data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry from January 2016 to December 2020 included all primary THA procedures performed for osteoarthritis (OA). Procedures using the Intellijoint HIP® navigation were identified and compared to procedures inserted using ‘other’ computer navigation systems and to all non-navigated procedures. The cumulative percent revision (CPR) was compared between the three groups using Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship and hazard ratios (HR) from Cox proportional hazards models, adjusted for age and gender. A prosthesis specific analysis was also performed. There were 1911 procedures that used the Intellijoint® system, 4081 used ‘other’ computer navigation, and 160,661 were non-navigated. The all-cause 2-year CPR rate for the Intellijoint HIP® system was 1.8% (95% CI 1.2, 2.6), compared to 2.2% (95% CI 1.8, 2.8) for other navigated and 2.2% (95% CI 2.1, 2.3) for non-navigated cases. A prosthesis specific analysis identified the Paragon/Acetabular Shell THAs combined with the Intellijoint HIP® system as having a higher (3.4%) rate of revision than non-navigated THAs (HR = 2.00 (1.01, 4.00), p=0.048). When this outlier combination was excluded, the Intellijoint® system group demonstrated a two-year CPR of 1.3%. There was no statistical difference in the CPR between the three groups before or after excluding Paragon/Acetabular Shell system. The preliminary data presented demonstrate no statistical difference in all cause revision rates when comparing the Intellijoint HIP® THA navigation system with ‘other’ navigation systems and ‘non-navigated’ approaches for primary THAs performed for OA. The current sample size remains too small to permit meaningful subgroup statistical comparisons

Background. Treatment of staphylococcal prosthetic joint infection (PJI) usually consists of surgical debridement and prolonged rifampicin combination therapy. Tailored antimicrobial treatment alternatives are needed due to frequent side effects and drug-drug interactions with rifampicin combination therapy. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of several alternative antibiotic strategies in patients with staphylococcal PJI. Methods. In this prospective, multicenter registry-based study, all consecutive patients with a staphylococcal PJI, treated with DAIR or one-stage revision surgery between January 1. st. , 2015 and November 3. rd. , 2020, were included. Patients were treated according to a predefined protocol for PJI. Antimicrobial treatment strategies differed between centers, which was accepted and used as pseudorandomization. Depending on the hospital patients were admitted to, they were treated with either a long-term rifampicin strategy (consisting of 12 weeks rifampicin combination therapy) ore one of several short-term rifampicin strategies, consisting of only five days of rifampicin combination treatment, started immediately postoperative, followed by clindamycin, flucloxacillin or vancomycin monotherapy. Patients were stratified in different groups, depending on the used antimicrobial strategy. Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare outcome between the groups. Results. Two hundred patients were included and, based on the antimicrobial treatment, stratified in one long-term rifampicin group (n=23) or one of the three short-term rifampicin groups: clindamycin (n=56), flucloxacillin (n=47), vancomycin (n=26), other (n=48). Outcome of PJI after DAIR or one-stage exchange was not statistically different between patients treated with long-term rifampicin combination therapy and patients treated with clindamycin or flucloxacillin monotherapy including only five days of rifampicin combination therapy. Moreover, treatment duration was four weeks shorter in the clindamycin-based and flucloxacillin-based groups. Adjusted hazard ratios for failure for patients treated with either flucloxacillin or clindamycin were almost equal to patients treated with long-term rifampicin combination therapy (aHR 1.21, 95%CI 0.34–4.40). Conclusions. A short-term rifampicin strategy with either clindamycin or flucloxacillin and only five days of rifampicin was found to be as effective as traditional long-term rifampicin combination therapy. A randomized controlled trial is needed to further address efficacy and safety of alternative treatment strategies for staphylococcal PJI

During total knee arthroplasty (TKA), a tourniquet is often used intraoperatively. There are proposed benefits of tourniquet use including shorter duration of surgery, improved surgical field visualization and increased cement penetration which may improve implant longevity. However, there are also cited side effects that include increased post-operative pain, slowed recovery, skin bruising, neurovascular injury and quadriceps weakness. Randomized controlled trials have demonstrated no differences in implant longevity, however they are limited by short follow-up and small sample sizes. The objective of the current study was to evaluate the rates of revision surgery among patients undergoing cemented TKA with or without an intraoperative tourniquet and to understand the causes and risk factors for failure. A retrospective cohort study was undertaken of all patients who received a primary, cemented TKA at a high-volume arthroplasty centre from January 1999 to December 2010. Patients who underwent surgery without the use of a tourniquet and those who had a tourniquet inflated for the entirety of the case were included. The causes and timing of revision surgery were recorded and cross referenced with the Canadian Institute of Health Information Discharge Abstract Database to reduce the loss to follow-up. Survivorship analysis was performed with the use of Kaplan-Meier curves to determine overall survival rates at final follow-up. A Cox proportional hazards model was utilized to evaluate independent predictors of revision surgery. Data from 3939 cases of primary cemented TKA were available for analysis. There were 2276 (58%) cases in which a tourniquet was used for the duration of the surgery and 1663 (42%) cases in which a tourniquet was not utilized. Mean time from the primary TKA was 14.7 years (range 0 days - 22.8 years) when censored by death or revision surgery. There were 150 recorded revisions in the entire cohort, with periprosthetic joint infection (n=50) and aseptic loosening (n=41) being the most common causes for revision. The cumulative survival at final follow-up for the tourniquetless group was 93.8% at final follow-up while the cumulative survival at final follow-up for the tourniquet group was 96.9% at final follow-up. Tourniquetless surgery was an independent predictor for all-cause revision with an HR of 1.53 (95% CI 1.1, 2.1, p=0.011). Younger age and male sex were also independent factors for all cause revision. The results of the current study demonstrate higher all-cause revision rates with tourniquetless surgery in a large cohort of patients undergoing primary cemented TKA. The available literature consists of short-term trials and registry data, which have inherent limitations. Potential causes for increased revision rates in the tourniquetless group include reduced cement penetration, increased intraoperative blood loss and longer surgical. The results of the current study should be taken into consideration, alongside the known risks and benefits of tourniquet use, when considering intraoperative tourniquet use in cemented TKA