Source of the study: University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand and University of Otago, Christchurch, New Zealand. Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are predictors of knee arthroplasty revision. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is effective for patients with the correct indications, however has higher revision rates than total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Different revision thresholds for the procedures have been postulated. Our aims were to investigate: 1) if PROMs could predict knee arthroplasty revision within two years of the score at six months, five years and ten years follow-up, and 2) if revision ‘thresholds’ differed between TKA and UKA. All TKAs and UKAs captured by the New Zealand Joint Registry between 1999 and 2019 with at least one OKS response at six months (TKA n=27,708, UKA n=8,415), five years (TKA n=11,519, UKA n=3,365) or ten years (TKA n=6,311, UKA n=1,744) were included. were propensity-score matched 2:1 with UKAs for comparison of revision thresholds. Logistic regression indicated that for every one-unit decrease in OKS, the odds of TKA and UKA revision decreased by 10% and 11% at six months, 10% and 12% at five years and 9% and 5% at ten years. Fewer TKA patients with ‘poor’ outcomes (≤25) subsequently underwent revision compared with UKA at six months (5.1% vs. 19.6%, p<0.001), five years (4.3% vs. 12.5%, p<0.001) and ten years (6.4%vs. 15.0%, p=0.02). Compared with TKA, UKA patients were 2.5 times more likely to undergo revision for ‘unknown’ reasons, bearing dislocations and disease progression. The OKS is a strong predictor of subsequent knee arthroplasty revision within two years of the score from early to late term. A lower revision threshold was found with UKA when compared with a matched TKA cohort. Higher revision rates of UKA are associated with both lower clinical thresholds for revision and additional modes of UKA failure

Introduction. We investigated predictors of poor outcomes following metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty (MoMHA) revision surgery performed for adverse reactions to metal debris (ARMD), to help inform the revision threshold and type of reconstruction. Patients and Methods. A retrospective cohort study was performed involving 346 MoMHAs revised for histologically confirmed ARMD at two specialist centres (245=hip resurfacing, 101=total hip arthroplasty). Numerous preoperative (blood metal ions and imaging) and intraoperative (findings, and components removed/implanted) factors were used to predict poor outcomes. Poor outcomes were postoperative complications (including re-revisions), 90-day mortality, and poor Oxford Hip Scores (<27/48). Multivariable logistic regression models for predicting poor outcomes were developed using stepwise selection methods. Results. Cumulative implant survival rate seven-years after ARMD revision was 87.0% (95% CI=81.0%-91.2%). Poor outcomes occurred in 39% (n=135). Shorter time (under four-years) from primary to revision surgery (odds ratio (OR)=2.12, CI=1.00–4.46) was the only preoperative predictor of poor outcomes. Pre-revision metal ions and imaging did not influence outcomes. Single-component revisions increased the risk of poor outcomes (acetabular or femoral vs. all component revisions; OR=2.99, CI=1.50–5.97). Intraoperative factors reducing the risk of poor outcomes included the posterior approach (OR=0.22, CI=0.10–0.49), revision head sizes ≥36mm (vs. <36mm: OR=0.37, CI=0.18–0.77), ceramic-on-polyethylene (OR vs. ceramic-on-ceramic=0.30, CI=0.14–0.66) and metal-on-polyethylene revision bearings (OR vs. ceramic-on-ceramic=0.37, CI=0.17–0.83). Discussion. This large cohort study demonstrated 39% of patients experience poor outcomes following MoMHA revision for ARMD. This information will help surgeons when counselling patient's pre-revision about the expected prognosis. No threshold exists for recommending ARMD revision, therefore surgeons must make decisions on an individual case basis. However, surgeons can make intraoperative decisions that influence outcomes following ARMD revision. Conclusion. We recommend optimal outcomes following ARMD revision may be achieved if surgeons use the posterior approach, revise all MoMHA components, and use ≥36mm ceramic-on-polyethylene or metal-on-polyethylene articulations

Outcomes following metal-on-metal hip replacement (MoMHR) revision surgery for adverse reactions to metal debris (ARMD) have been poor, and inferior compared with non-ARMD revisions. Subsequently, surgeons and worldwide authorities widely recommended early revision for ARMD, with a lower surgical threshold adopted. However, the impact of early surgery for ARMD is unknown. We compared the rates of adverse outcomes following MoMHR revision surgery in matched ARMD and non-ARMD patients. We performed a retrospective observational study using data from the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man. All MoMHR patients subsequently undergoing revision surgery for any indication between August 2008 and August 2014 were eligible. ARMD and non-ARMD revisions were matched one-to-one for multiple potential confounding factors using propensity scores. Adverse outcomes following revision surgery (intra-operative complications, mortality, re-revision surgery) were compared between matched groups using regression analysis. In 2,576 matched MoMHR revisions (ARMD=1,288 and non-ARMD=1,288), intra-operative complications were similar between ARMD (2.4%) and non-ARMD (2.5%) revisions (odds ratio=0.97, 95% CI=0.59–1.60; p=0.899). All-cause mortality rates were lower following ARMD revision compared with non-ARMD revision (hazard ratio (HR)=0.43, 95% CI=0.22–0.86; p=0.018). All-cause re-revision rates were lower following ARMD revision compared with non-ARMD revision (HR=0.52, 95% CI=0.36–0.75; p<0.001). Compared with ARMD revision (5-years=94.3%), MoMHR revisions for infection (5-years=81.2%) and dislocation/subluxation (5-years=81.9%) had the lowest implant survival rates. Contrary to previous observations, MoMHRs revised for ARMD have approximately half the risk of re-revision and death compared to non-ARMD revisions. We suspect worldwide regulatory authorities have positively influenced outcomes following ARMD revision by widely recommending that surgeons exercise a lower revision threshold. Our findings suggest the threshold for ARMD revision surgery need not be lowered further. The high risk of failure following MoMHR revision for infection and dislocation is concerning

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.

The glenoid is the ‘weak link’ in total shoulder arthroplasty. Concerns exist over loosening of all glenoid components. Metal back glenoid components have, in some reports, had early problems with liner dissociation, polyethylene wear, osteolysis and component fracture. In November 2003 the first metal back SMR total shoulder replacement was implanted in New Zealand (NZ). We reviewed the NZ joint registry information on anatomical total shoulder replacements over a 5-year period from the end of 2003. There were 192 metal back SMR prostheses (Lima) implanted and 484 cemented prostheses (all brands). 70% of patients in each group completed an Oxford score at 6 months. The mean score in both groups was 40.39. There was no statistically significant difference in the revision rate in this period for revisions of any kind (p=0.07). 6/192 metal back cases had a revision procedure, but none were for the glenoid component. 7/484 cemented cases had a revision procedure with 3 being for glenoid loosening. None of the metal back glenoids were revised in this period. 5 of the cemented glenoids were revised in this period. There was a higher revision rate for instability in the metal back group with 5 in the metal back group and 2 in the cemented group being revised for instability (p=0.01). In the metal back group there were 3 revisions to a reverse shoulder arthroplasty without removal of the metal back glenoid base plate. We have not identified an early cause for concern with the use of the metal back SMR prosthesis in anatomical total shoulder replacement in New Zealand. It is possible, but not proven, that the modularity of the implant may lower the revision threshold for some cases. Reassuringly, there were no revisions of the metal back glenoid in this early period

Aims

Medial pivot (MP) total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) were designed to mimic native knee kinematics with their deep medial congruent fitting of the tibia to the femur almost like a ball-on-socket, and a flat lateral part. GMK Sphere is a novel MP implant. Our primary aim was to study the migration pattern of the tibial tray of this TKA.

Purpose of the study: Prior assessment of haemorrhagic risk appears to be an essential element in orthopaedic surgery, particularly for lower limb procedures. This assessment is necessary for information delivery to the patient, for elaborating a transfusion strategy, and to choose between different therapeutic options. Despite this potential interest, data which could be used to validate this hypothesis and define and quantify what is called “haemorrhagic risk” are scarce in the literature. In order to furnish a preliminary element for reflection on this topic, a sample of 450 orthopaedic surgeons and 50 anaesthetists who perform routine arthropathy procedures for the lower limb were questioned. Material and methods: This was an Internet questionnaire with 13 questions. Five hundred practitioners were surveyed in five western countries (France, Germany, United Kingdom, Spain, United States), 100 in each country. Results: Globally, 90% of the practitioners considered it “important” or “very important” to evaluate the haemorrhagic risk. This percentage varied from 83% to 98% depending on the country. The main haemorrhagic complication was considered to be operative site bleeding, intra- or postoperatively, for 95% of the practitioners (89% to 98%) after hip or knee arthroplasty. The possible consequences of this haemorrhage were classified according to their gravity. Vital risk was classified N1, but not systematically or unanimously, since, for example, 75% of the French practitioners did not place vital risk in this category. Three other criteria of gravity of operative bleeding were reported, but with no clear hierarchy:. requirement for a revision of the operative site;. volume of blood loss considered important because of a drop in the haemoglobin to 4 – 6.5 g/dl, or transfusion of 2.4 – 3 packed cell units;. complications related to the haematoma, difficulties for rehabilitation or longer hospital stay. Discussion: This survey showed that evaluation of haemorrhagic risk is considered to be an important element in orthopaedic practice, particularly operative site bleeding. The main elements constituting signs of gravity were: vital risk, revision, a threshold of blood loss, and constitution of a haematoma