Background. Sequentially annealed, highly crosslinked polyethylene (HXLPE) has been used clinically in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) for over a decade[1]. However, little is known about the reasons for HXLPE revision, its surface damage mechanisms, or its in vivo oxidative stability relative to conventional polyethylene. We asked whether retrieved sequentially annealed HLXPE tibial inserts exhibited: (1) similar reasons for revision; (2) enhanced resistance to surface damage; and (3) enhanced oxidative stability, when compared with tibial inserts fabricated from conventional gamma inert sterilized polyethylene (control). Methods. Four hundred and fifty-six revised tibial inserts in two cohorts (sequentially annealed and conventional UHMWPE control) were collected in a multicenter retrieval program between 2000 and 2016. We controlled for implantation time between the two cohorts by excluding tibial inserts with a greater implantation time than the longest term sequentially annealed retrieval (9.5 years). The mean implantation time (± standard deviation) for the sequentially annealed components was 1.9 ± 1.7 years, and for the control inserts, 3.4 ± 2.7 years (Figure 1). Reasons for HXLPE revision were assessed based on medical records, radiographs, and examinations of the retrieved components. Surface damage mechanisms were assessed using the Hood method[2]. Oxidation was measured at the bearing surface, the backside surface, the anterior and posterior faces, as well as the post (when available) using FTIR (ASTM F2102). Surface damage and oxidation analyses were available for 338 of the components. We used nonparametric statistical testing to analyze for differences in oxidation and surface damage when adjusting for polyethylene formulation as a function of implantation time. Results. The tibial inserts in both cohorts were revised most frequently for loosening, infection, and instability. Instability was observed more frequently in inserts without a stabilizing post. In both cohorts, the most commonly observed surface damage mechanisms were burnishing, pitting, and scratching. Delamination was rare and only observed in 2 sequentially annealed inserts and 7 inserts in the control cohort. We observed six cases of posterior condyle fracture, which was always associated with instability (Figure 2). 5/6 of the fracture cases did not have a stabilizing post. Oxidation indices of the sequentially annealed inserts were, on average, low (ASTM oxidation index < 1) and not significantly different than the control inserts on the bearing surface and anterior/posterior face (Figure 3). Discussion. The findings of this study document the reasons for revision, surface damage mechanisms, and oxidative behavior of sequentially annealed HXLPE for TKA. We observed evidence of low in vivo oxidation in both retrieved sequentially annealed HXLPE and control tibial inserts. We found no association between the levels of oxidation and clinical performance of the HXLPE tibial components. However, because of the short-term follow-up, analysis of longer-term retrievals may be appropriate

Source of the study: University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is effective for patients with isolated compartment osteoarthritis, however the procedure has higher revision rates. Long-term survivorship and accurate characterisation of revision reasons are limited by a lack of long-term data and standardised revision definitions. We aimed to identify survivorship, risk factors and revision reasons in a large UKA cohort with up to 20 years follow-up.

Patient, implant and revision details were recorded through clinical and radiological review for 2,137 consecutive patients undergoing primary medial UKA across Auckland, Canterbury, Counties Manukau and Waitematā DHB between 2000 and 2017. Revision reasons were determined from review of clinical, laboratory, and radiological records for each patient using a standardised protocol. To ensure complete follow-up data was cross-referenced with the New Zealand Joint Registry to identify patients undergoing subsequent revision outside the hospitals. Implant survival, revision risk and revision reasons were analysed using Cox proportional-hazards and competing risk analyses.

Implant survivorship at 15 years was comparable for cemented fixed-bearing (cemFB; 91%) and uncemented mobile-bearing (uncemMB; 91%), but lower for cemented mobile-bearing (cemMB; 80%) implants. There was higher incidence of aseptic loosening with cemented implants (3–4% vs. 0.4% uncemented, p<0.01), osteoarthritis (OA) progression with cemMB implants (9% vs. 3% cemFB/uncemMB; p<0.05) and bearing dislocations with uncemMB implants (3% vs. 2% cemMB, p=0.02). Compared with the oldest patients (≥75 years), there was a nearly two-fold increase in risk for those aged 55–64 (hazard ratio 1.9; confidence interval 1.1-3.3, p=0.03). No association was found with gender, BMI or ASA.

Cemented mobile-bearing implants and younger age were linked to lower implant survivorship. These were associated with disease progression and bearing dislocations. The use of cemented fixed-bearing and uncemented mobile-bearing designs have superior comparable long-term survivorship.

Introduction: Revision hip arthroplasty places a significant burden on hospital resources. Huge pressure is being placed on the orthopaedic community to alter practices with respect to implant selection and bearing surfaces in order to try to reduce the likelihood of revision due to aseptic socket loosening. To date there is little clinical evidence to support these changes.

Aim: To review the case mix requiring revision surgery at a specialist arthroplasty unit in order to identify the common reasons for failure of primary arthroplasties.

Methods: A retrospective single surgeon review was performed to identify patients who had undergone revision hip surgery over the study period. The reasons for revision were identified for all cases. Particular attention was paid to the cases with aseptic socket loosening to determine the time to revision for these cases.

Results: 176 revision procedures were performed between October 2001 and May 2005. In 74 (42%) cases aseptic socket loosening was identified (average socket survival 15.4 years). In 16 cases this was the sole cause for revision. In 58 cases the femoral component was also loose. 102 (58%) cases were performed for other reasons. Dislocation was the cause in 14%, femoral component loosening in 20%, infection in 18% and fracture in 6%. Aseptic loosening of cemented sockets less than 10 years old was only seen in 7 (4%) cases.

Conclusions: Aseptic loosening of cemented sockets less than 10 years old was the least common cause of revision in this series. Cemented polyethylene acetabular components continue to provide a satisfactory bearing surface on the acetabular side of total hip arthroplasties. We recommend caution when interpreting the information provided with new products with respect to the benefits of different fixation and bearing surfaces for the majority of patients.

Introduction

A key outcome measured by national joint registries are revision events. This informs best practice and identifies poor-performing surgical devices. Although registry data often record reasons for revision arthroplasty, interpretation is limited by lack of standardised definitions of revision reasons and objective assessment of radiologic and laboratory parameters. Our study aim was to compare reasons for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) revision reported to the New Zealand Joint Registry (NZJR) with reasons identified by independent clinical review.

Introduction and Aim: Following the establishment of the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry, the Australian orthopaedic community has quality prosthesis specific information on knee replacement. This presentation details the demographics of primary total knee replacement, types of prostheses used, methods of fixation and the incidence of, and reasons for, early revision.

Results: Over 36,000 primary total knee replacements with almost 400 subsequent revisions were recorded. Primary total knee replacements were undertaken more commonly in females (56.4%), mostly for osteoarthritis (95.9%), with a mean subject age of 69.6 years.

The Registry recorded 56 different knee prostheses with the 10 most common accounting for 85.5% of all procedures. The patella was not replaced in the majority of cases (58.5%), however this varied considerably with prosthesis type and method of fixation. Cement fixation of the tibial component occurred in 76.9% of cases and the femoral component in 49.5%. Most commonly the insert was fixed (71.3%) and minimally stabilised (86.7%). Posterior stabilised inserts were used in 12.8% of primary cases. The cumulative revision rate at one year was 1.0% and 2.1% at two years. Early revision was minor in 54.1% of cases and major in the remainder. The most common reasons for minor revision were patello-femoral pain (27.1%) and infection (21.7%); for major revision, early loosening (40.2%) and infection (27.5%). Prosthesis type, patella use, method of fixation, degree of constraint and the use of fixed, rotating and/or sliding inserts did not significantly affect revision rates at this early stage.

Conclusion: Although variation is seen in early revision rates depending on the prosthesis type, patella use, method of fixation and other prosthesis specific characteristics, these differences are currently not significant.

Aims. The aim of this study was to assess the clinical and radiological results of patients who were revised using a custom-made triflange acetabular component (CTAC) for component loosening and pelvic discontinuity (PD) after previous total hip arthroplasty (THA). Methods. Data were extracted from a single centre prospective database of patients with PD who were treated with a CTAC. Patients were included if they had a follow-up of two years. The Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS), modified Oxford Hip Score (mOHS), EurQol EuroQoL five-dimension three-level (EQ-5D-3L) utility, and Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), including visual analogue score (VAS) for pain, were gathered at baseline, and at one- and two-year follow-up. Reasons for revision, and radiological and clinical complications were registered. Trends over time are described and tested for significance and clinical relevance. Results. A total of 18 females with 22 CTACs who had a mean age of 73.5 years (SD 7.7) were included. A significant improvement was found in HOOS (p < 0.0001), mOHS (p < 0.0001), EQ-5D-3L utility (p = 0.003), EQ-5D-3L NRS (p = 0.013), VAS pain rest (p = 0.008), and VAS pain activity (p < 0.0001) between baseline and final follow-up. Minimal clinically important improvement in mOHS and the HOOS Physical Function Short Form (HOOS-PS) was observed in 16 patients (73%) and 14 patients (64%), respectively. Definite healing of the PD was observed in 19 hips (86%). Complications included six cases with broken screws (27%), four cases (18%) with bony fractures, and one case (4.5%) with sciatic nerve paresthesia. One patient with concurrent bilateral PD had revision surgery due to recurrent dislocations. No revision surgery was performed for screw failure or implant breakage. Conclusion. CTAC in patients with THA acetabular loosening and PD can result in stable constructs and significant improvement in functioning and health-related quality of life at two years' follow-up. Further follow-up is necessary to determine the mid- to long-term outcome. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(2):53–61

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

The objective of this study was to assess the clinical and radiological results of patients who were revised using a new generation custom-made triflange acetabular component (CTAC) for component loosening and large acetabular defect (Paprosky 3A and 3B) after previous total hip arthroplasty (THA). New generation CTACs involve the use of patient-specific drill guides and incorporate three-dimensional printed bone models, enhancing precision during surgical implantation. Data were extracted from a single centre prospective database of patients with large acetabular defects who were treated with a new generation CTAC. Patients were included if they had a minimum follow-up of five years. The modified Oxford Hip Score (mOHS), EurQol EuroQoL five-dimension three-level (EQ-5D-3L) utility, and Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), including visual analogue score (VAS) for pain, were gathered at baseline, and at two- and five-year follow-up. Reasons for revision, and radiological and clinical complications were registered. Trends over time are described and tested for significance (p<0.05). A total of 49 (70%) of 70 patients with a mean age of 73.5 years (SD 7.7) had a complete follow-up of 5 years. A significant improvement was found in HOOS, mOHS, EQ-5D-3L utility and NRS, VAS pain rest and activity between baseline and final follow-up. Complications included 8 cases with loosening screws, 4 with bony fractures, 4 periprosthetic infections and 2 cases with dislocation. One patient with bilateral pelvic discontinuity had revision surgery due to recurrent dislocations. No revision surgery was performed for screw failure or implant breakage. New generation CTAC in patients with THA acetabular loosening and massive acetabular bone loss (Paprosky 3A and 3B) can result in stable constructs and significant improvement in functioning and health-related quality of life at five years’ follow-up

Source of the study: University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand and University of Otago, Christchurch, New Zealand. Outcomes following knee arthroplasty are typically defined as implant survivorship at defined timepoints, or revision incidence over time. These estimates are difficult to conceptualise, and lack context for younger patients with more remaining years of life. We therefore aimed to determine a ‘lifetime’ risk of revision as a more useful metric for total (TKA) and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). The New Zealand Joint Registry was used to identify 96,497 primary TKAs and 13,481 primary UKAs performed between 1999 and 2019. Patient mortality and revision incidence were also extracted. Estimates of lifetime risk were calculated using an actuarial lifetable method. The estimates were stratified by age and gender. Reasons for revision were categorised using previously published standardised definitions. The lifetime risk of UKA revision was two-fold higher than TKA across all age groups (range 3.7-40.4% UKA, 1.6-22.4% TKA). Revision risk was higher for males with TKA (range 3.4%-25.2% males, 1.1%-20% females), but higher for females with UKA (range 4.3%-43.4% vs. 2.9%-37.4% for males). Revision due to infections were higher for TKA (1.5% males, 0.7% females) compared with UKA (0.4% males, 0.1% females). The increased risk in younger UKA patients was associated with higher incidence of aseptic loosening (UKA 2%, TKA 1%) and ‘unexplained pain’ (UKA 2%, TKA 0.2%). The risk for UKA was two-fold higher than TKA, and this was partially explained by a higher proportion of revisions due to ‘unexplained pain’. For TKA, males had higher risk of revision, in contrast to UKA where females had higher risk; this gender difference was associated with higher incidence of infections with TKA. Younger age, gender and higher ASA status were also associated with increased lifetime risk of UKA revision. Lifetime risk of revision can provide a meaningful measure of arthroplasty outcomes to aid patient counselling

This study aimed to quantify self-reported outcomes and walking gait biomechanics in patients following primary and revision THA. The specific goals of this study were to investigate: (i) if primary and revision THA patients have comparable preoperative outcomes; and (2) if revision THA patients have worse postoperative outcomes than primary THA patients. Forty-three patients undergoing primary THA for osteoarthritis and 23 patients undergoing revision THA were recruited and followed longitudinally for their first 12 postoperative months. Reasons for revision were loosening (73%), dislocation (9%), and infection (18%). Patients completed the Hip dysfunction and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS), and underwent gait analysis preoperatively, and at 3 and 12 months postoperatively. A 10 camera motion analysis system (V5 Vantage, Vicon, UK) recorded marker trajectories (100 Hz) during walking at self- selected speeds. A generic lower-body musculoskeletal model (Gait2392) was scaled using principal component analysis [1] and the inverse kinematics tool in Opensim 3.3 was used to compute joint angles for the lower limbs in the sagittal plane. Independent samples t-test were used to compare patient reported outcomes between the primary and revision groups at each timepoint. Statistical parametric mapping was used to compare gait patterns between the two groups at each timepoint. Preoperatively, patients undergoing primary THA reported significantly worse pain (p<0.001), symptoms (p<0.001), function (p<0.001), and quality of life (p=0.004). No differences were observed at 3 and 12 months postoperatively between patients who had received a primary or revision THA. The only observed difference in gait pattern was that patients with a revision THA had reduced hip extension at 3 months, but no differences were observed preoperatively and 12 months. Despite the suggestions in the literature that revision THA is bound to have worse outcomes compared to primary THA, we found no differences in in patient-reported outcomes and gait patterns at 12 months postoperatively. This suggests that it may be possible, in some circumstances, for patients following revision THA to achieve similar outcomes to their peers undergoing primary THA

Adverse spinopelvic mobility (SPM) has been shown to increase risk of dislocation of primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). In patients undergoing THA, prevalence of adverse SPM has been shown to be as high as 41%. Stiff lumbar spine, large posterior standing pelvic tilt and severe sagittal spinal deformity have been identified as risk factors for increased hip instability. Dislocation rates for dual mobility articulations have been reported to be 0% to 1.1%. The aim of this study was to determine the early survivorship from the Australian National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) of patients with adverse SPM who received a dual mobility articulation. A multicentre study was performed using data from 229 patients undergoing primary THA, enrolled consecutively. All the patients who had one or more adverse spine or pelvic mobility parameters had a dual mobility articulation inserted at the time of their surgery. Average age was 76 (22 to 93) years and 63% were female. At a mean of 2.1 (1 – 3.3) years post-op, the AOANJRR was analysed for follow-up. Reasons for revision and types of revision were identified. The AOANJRR reported two revisions. One due to infection and the second due to femoral component loosening. No revisions for dislocation were reported. One patient died with the prosthesis in situ. Kaplan Meier survival was 99.3% (CI 98.3% − 100%) at 2 years. DM bearings reduce the risk of dislocation of primary THA in patients with adverse spine and pelvic mobility

Introduction. Dual mobility (DM) total hip arthroplasty (THA) prostheses are designed to increase stability. In the setting of primary and revision THA, DM THA are used most frequently for dysplasia and instability diagnoses, respectively. As the use of DM THA continues to increase, with 8,031 cases logged in the American Joint Replacement Registry from 2012–2018, characterizing in vivo damage and clinical failure modes are important to report. Methods. Under IRB-approved implant retrieval protocol, 43 DM THA systems from 41 patients were included. Each DM THA component was macroscopically examined for standard damage modes. Clinically-relevant data, including patient demographics and surgical elements, were collected from medical records. Fretting and corrosion damage grading is planned, according to the Goldberg et al. classification system. Results. In this 43-retrieved implant series, there were 23 female and 17 male patients (n=1, unknown), with an average body mass index of 29 (range, 19–49), and average ages at index and revision of 63 years (range, 34–80) and 64 years (range, 38–88), respectively. The average duration of implantation was 12.9 months (range, 0.1–72.0). Reasons for revision included infection (n=11, 26%), mechanical complication (n=10, 23%), intraprosthetic dislocation (n=6, 14%), periprosthetic fracture (n=5, 12%), pain (n=4, 9%), acetabular-associated loosening (n=3, 7%), unknown (n=3, 7%), hematoma (n=2, 5%), leg length discrepancy (n=1, 2%), and inflammatory reaction (n=1, 2%); some cases included multiple reasons for revision. On articular surfaces, scratching was the most commonly observed damage mode on all components, with more than 40% of acetabular cup and femoral heads showing scratching damage (Figure 1A). Abrasion, burnishing, and pitting damage were also observed in more than 10% of acetabular cup and acetabular liner components; further, approximately 20% of polyethylene acetabular liners exhibited edge deformation damage. On backside surfaces, polyethylene acetabular liners showed the greatest damage, with more than 60% of components exhibiting abrasion, scratching, or pitting damage (Figure 1B). Conclusion. This series showed various reasons for revision as well as in vivo damage of retrieved DM systems following short-to-midterm implantation. Damage was observed on both articular and backside surfaces of the five components of DM THA. Modularity of DM THA prostheses may amplify rates of in vivo damage. Future studies are needed to confirm these results and clinical significance. For any figures or tables, please contact the authors directly

Materials and methods: Based on data from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register, we reviewed the results of uncemented femoral stems in Norway in the period 1987 to 1. April 2002. We compared these results to the results of the cemented Charnley monoblock stem, which still is the most commonly used femoral stem in Norway. Only prostheses used in more than one hundred hips were included. Based on these criteria, we identified a total of 7 856 primary total hip prostheses in fifteen different uncemented stems. With the Kaplan-Meier method, the survival of the primary prostheses were calculated and compared with each other and with the Charnley stem. The endpoint was revision in which the whole prostheses or the stem alone was removed or exchanged. The Cox regression analysis was used to adjust for differences in age, gender, diagnosis, former operations and profylactic antibiotics. Separate analyses for patients younger than 60 years and for stems with follow-up less than ten years were done. Reasons for revision in the uncemented Corail stem and the cemented Charnley stem was analysed. Results: The Corail stem, wich is the most commonly used uncemented stem in Norway (n=3590), had excellent long term results. 10 years survival in patients younger than 60 years was for the Corail 97,5% and for the Charnley 90,2% (p=0,001). Reasons for revision of the Corail were in most cases pain and repeated dislocations. Aseptic loosening was the dominant cause of failure of the Charnley stem. Several uncemented stems have results which are as good as or superior to the Charnley. The Femora, the Biofit, the Parhofer and the Harris Galante stems all had inferior results. Many uncemented stems with less than 10-years of follow-up have excellent 5 years survival. The 10 years survival of uncemented total hip arthroplasties, however was inferior to the all-cemented Charnley. Cup revisions due to aseptic loosening, and wear and/or osteolysis were the reasons for this. Discussion: The Corail stem has excellent long term results. Several newer stems have promising short- and medium term results. Due to inferior results of unce-mented cups, however, most Norwegian orthopaedic surgeons use cemented primary hip replacements

Introduction. Three-dimensional (3D) printing of porous titanium implants marks a revolution in orthopaedics, promising enhanced bony fixation whilst maintaining design equivalence with conventionally manufactured components. No retrieval study has investigated differences between implants manufactured using these two methods. Our study was the first to compare these two groups using novel non-destructive methods. Materials and methods. We investigated 16 retrieved acetabular cups divided into ‘3D printed’ (n = 6; Delta TT) and ‘conventional’ (n = 10; Pinnacle Porocoat). The groups were matched for age, time to revision, size and gender (Table 1). Reasons for revision included unexplained pain, aseptic loosening, infection and ARMD. Visual inspection was performed to evaluate tissue attachment. Micro-CT was used to assess clinically relevant morphometric features of the porous structure, such as porosity, depth of the porous layer, pore size and strut thickness. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was applied to evaluate the surface morphology. Results. Significant differences (p = 0.0002) were found for all morphometric parameters (Table 2). Microscopic analysis revealed uniform beads over the backside of conventional implants, due to the manufacturing technique (Figure 1a). Conversely, beads of random size were found on 3D printed implants, representing a by-product of the manufacturing process, where some starting powder particles are not completely fused together (Figure 1b). The two groups showed similar tissue attachment (3D printed 76.9 ± 27.1%; conventional 73.8 ± 12.2%; p = 0.2635). Conclusion. This was the first study to analyse retrieved 3D printed orthopaedic implants. Differences were found between these and conventional implants, but both literature and registry data do not suggest a short-mid-term clinical issue with 3D printed components. Similar tissue on growth suggested a comparable behaviour with bone in situ. The key difference is the presence of the particles on 3D printed implants, whose clinical significance needs to be investigated. For any figures or tables, please contact the authors directly

Introduction. Historically, US arthroplasty revision rates are based on CMS data that cannot verify initial surgery date in patients under 65 years or laterality of revision. We calculated US one-year revision rates for primary total hip replacement (THR) using a representative cohort. Reasons for revision were documented. Methods. A multi-center cohort from US surgeons in 28 states collected sociodemographic data; medical, emotional, musculoskeletal comorbidities; BMI; and patient-reported pain and function (SF36, HOOS) for elective THR patients. Cases in 2011–2013 were matched with CMS data to ascertain 1 year revision through 2014. Predictors of revision were identified. Chart reviews to verify reasons for revision were performed. Results. Overall, 1.6% of 2926 primary THR surgeries were revised within 12 months. Mean age was 72 years, 59% female. No significant difference in pre-operative age, sex, BMI, pain, function, or emotional health was detected between revision and non-revision patients. Severe low back pain was twice as prevalent among revisions (23% vs. 11%; p<0.04) as was prior stroke (8.5% vs. 3%). Primary reasons for revision were infection (30%), mechanical failure including dislocation (26%), fracture (19%), metal ions (15%) and other (10%). In patients under 65 years of age, the distribution of reasons for revision are identical. Conclusion. The incidence of revision THR in the US within 12 months of the index procedure is 1.6%. Infection and mechanical failure, including dislocation, are the most common causes of early revision, followed by peri-prosthetic fracture. Patients with severe pre-op lumbar spine pain are at higher risk for early revision after THR. Abbreviations: total hip replacement (THR)

Introduction/Aims. The Exeter Stem can be used with metal femoral head that are made of either cobalt chrome, or stainless steel. The aim of this study was to compare the rates of revision of these two metal femoral head types when used with this femoral component. Method. Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) Data from September 1999 until December 2015 for all primary THRs using an Exeter or an Exeter v40 stem with the diagnosis of osteoarthritis were analysed. Only bearing couples that used a metal head with polyethylene were included. The cumulative percent revision (CPR) calculated using Kaplan-Meier estimates were compared for the two metal head types. CPR were further analysed by age, polyethylene type and head size. Reasons for revision and types of revision were assessed. Results. There were 51666 THR that used Exeter or Exeter v40 stems of which 12554 had femoral heads made of cobalt chrome and 39112 had heads made of stainless steel. There was no difference in the rate of revision overall when head types were compared. There was also no difference in CPR between the two head types with age. Hips that used cobalt chrome heads had a higher CPR than stainless steel heads when these were used against non-crosslinked polyethylene. When heads with a diameter of 32mm or greater were compared, those made of cobalt chrome had a higher rate of revision than stainless steel HR 1.38 (1.15, 1.66) P<0.001). Conclusion. There was no difference comparing cobalt chrome or stainless-steel heads, except where non-crosslinked polyethylene was used, or where the heads size was 32mm or greater. In these comparisons, heads made from cobalt chrome had a higher rate of revision

Introduction. Modular-neck hips have twice the rate of revision compared to fixed stems. Metal related pathology is the second most common reason for revision of implants featuring titanium stems with cobalt chrome necks. We aimed to understand the in-vivo performance of current designs and explore the rationale for their continued use. Methods. This study involved the examination of 200 retrieved modular-neck hips grouped according to the material used for their neck and stem. Groups A, B and C had neck/stems featuring CoCr/beta Ti-alloy (TMZF), CoCr/Ti6Al4V-alloy, and Ti6Al4V/Ti6Al4V respectively. Reasons for revision included pain, elevated metal ion levels and fluid collection. The stem-neck interface was assessed for severity of fretting/corrosion using metrology methods to compute linear wear penetration rate. Results. All retrieved implants with a CoCr/Ti combination showed evidence of moderate-severe fretting corrosion at the neck-stem junction. Maximum penetration depth rate in group A (median of 17.9μm/year) was higher than that in group B (median=5.8μm/year); p=0.0012 and group C (median=1.55μm/year), p=0.0095. Implant failure occurred 2-fold earlier in modular-neck hips with TMZF-alloy stems than Ti6Al4V. There was a strong correlation between severity of damage and time to revision in the TMZF group A (p < 0.0001) and between taper damage and Co levels (p < 0.0001) and Cr levels (p < 0.0012). Patient and implant data did not correlate with the amount of material loss observed, (p>0.05). Discussion. The findings are in agreement with registry data as designs with CoCr/Ti at neck/stem interfaces had the highest levels of fretting and corrosion and lower threshold for revision. Conclusion. Corrosion of metal orthopaedic implants remains of clinical concern to patients, surgeons and industry. In light of the findings, the continued use of modular-neck with a metal mismatch at the neck/stem junction is unfavourable and should be avoided

Introduction. The causes of revision total knee replacement are varied. There is a subset of these revision cases (poly wear and some cases of instability for example) where the ability to retain the metal femoral and tibial components and replacing just the polyethylene is an appealing option. We report on a series of RTKR where only the poly insert was replaced and the patients were followed for a minimum of ten years. Materials and Methods. Our study group consisted of 64 consecutive non infected RTKR patients who underwent a revision of the polyethylene alone between 1998 and 2006. All patients had been treated originally with the same cemented, CR, patella resurfaced primary TKR. Reasons for revision were 51 poly wear and/or osteolysis, 7 instability, and 6 other. The average time from the primary to the revision surgery was 9.1 years (range 2.2 to 16.1 years). All patients had an isolated poly liner change. No femurs or tibial trays were revised. Average age of the cohort at revision was 72.2 (range 48 to 88). Average BMI was 31.9 (range 23.6 to 43.9). There were 36 female patients. Of the group, 42 were ASA 1 or 2 and 22 were ASA 3. Pre-op alignment averaged 6.0 (range 2 varus to 8 valgus). Patients were followed for a minimum of 10 years (range 10 to 19 years). Results. At final follow up 13 patients had died, none were lost to follow up leaving 51 patients available for review. There were 7 reoperations in 6 patients (7 knees). Reasons for reoperation were: 4 aseptic tibial loosening at an average of 4.1 years (range 1.2 to 8.3) following first poly revision, two for polywear at an average 9 years post first poly revision, and one for deep infection (5.6 years post first poly revision). Knee society scores at 6 weeks post revision was 93.5 (range 38 to 100) and at final follow up for the non-revised knees was 91.6 (range 36 to 100). Conclusion. In appropriate settings, where the femoral and tibial components are satisfactorily aligned and well fixed and the soft tissues can be balanced, a poly change alone can provide a durable solution for the revision total knee patient. The ability to retain the metal components has advantages in terms of patient morbidity and cost

Introduction. The revision rate of unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) in national joint registries is much higher than that of total knee replacements and that of UKR in cohort studies from multiple high-volume centres. The reasons for this are unclear but may be due to incorrect patient selection, inadequate surgical technique, and inappropriate indications for revision. Meniscal bearing UKR has well defined evidence based indications based on preoperative radiographs, the surgical technique can be assessed from post-operative radiographs and the reason for revision from pre-revision radiographs. However, for an accurate assessment aligned radiographs are required. The aim of the study was to determine why the revision rate of UKR in registries is so high by undertaking a radiographic review of revised UKR identified by the United Kingdom's (UK) National Joint Registry (NJR). Methods. A novel cross-sectional study was designed. Revised medial meniscal bearing UKR with primary operation registered with the NJR between 2006 and 2010 were identified. Participating centres from all over the country provided blinded pre-operative, post-operative, and pre-revision radiographs. Two observers reviewed the radiographs. Results. Radiographs were provided for 107 revised UKR from multiple centres. The recommended indications were not satisfied in 30%. The most common reason was the absence of bone-on-bone arthritis, and in 16 (19%) the medial joint space was normal or nearly normal. Post-operative films were mal-aligned in 50%. Significant surgical errors were seen in 50%, with most errors attributable to tibial component placement and orientation. No definite reason for revision was identified in 67%. Reasons for revision included disease progression (10%), tibial component loosening (7%), dislocation of the bearing (7%), infection (6%) femoral component loosening (3%), and peri-prosthetic fracture (2% - one femur, one tibia). Discussion and Conclusion. This study found that improper patient selection, inadequate surgical technique, inappropriate revisions and poorly taken radiographs all contributed to the high revision rate. There is a misconception that UKR should be used for early OA. Bone-on-bone arthritis is a requirement and was definitely not present in about 20%. There were many surgical errors, particularly related to the tibial cut: The new instrumentation should reduce this. There was a high prevalence of mal-aligned radiographs. Revisions should be avoided unless there is a definite problem, as the outcome of revision is usually poor in this situation. 80% of UKR revisions could potentially be avoided if surgeons adhered to the recommended indications for primary and revision surgery, and used the recommended surgical techniques. This study therefore suggests that if UKR was used appropriately the revision rate would be substantially lower and probably similar to that of TKR

Aim. Aim of the study was to find out whether patients with positive minor criteria but without meeting the MSIS definition have a difference in the outcome after revision-surgery compared to patients without any MSIS-criteria? And does the reason for revision-surgery (eg. loosening) have an additional influence on the outcome parameters in patients with positive minor criteria?. Method. A retrospective matched-pair analysis with 98 patients who had undergone revision-surgery after TJA was performed. Forty-nine patients who showed 1 to 3 positive minor criteria (PMC) whereas 49 patients without any positive minor criteria (aseptic complications control group) were compared regarding re-revision-rate and revision-free survival. Patients were matched regarding sex, age, joint and comorbidities using the classification system by McPherson et al. Reasons for revisions were categorized in loosening, body wear, periprosthetic fracture/mechanical failure and soft-tissue complication. Endpoints were defined as re-revision for any cases. Results. In the group of patients with PMC 30.6% (n=15) had to undergo re-revision compared to 6.12% (n=3) in the true aseptic complication (AC) control group. The overall-survival in the PMC-group was 69.4% (95% CI: 47–69 months) and in the AC-group 93.9% (95% CI: 82–94 months) (p=0.001). In patients with PMC but not exchange of the implant the overall-survival was 94.1% (95%CI survival time: 71–88 months) and in comparison the cohort with exchange of the prosthesis showed an overall-survival of 56.25% (95% CI survival time: 29–53 months) (p=0.008). Conclusions. Our findings suggest that in dependence of the occurrence of prosthetic loosening even single positive minor-criteria may have an impact on the outcome after THA- and TKA revision-surgeries