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

Total hip arthroplasty has been constantly evolving with technological improvements to achieve the best survival rates. Although the new implants are under closer surveillance through processes such as Beyond Compliance, orthopaedic surgeons generally tend to look out for the latest implants with good short-term results and hope for better long-term results for these. We questioned whether such an assumption or bias is valid. We analysed the data of Kaplan-Meier estimates of cumulative revisions of primary hip replacement by fixation, stem/cup brand and bearing combinations from the NJR 19th Annual Report published in September 2022. We performed a univariate linear regression analysis to predict the 10- and 15-year revision rates for these different hip implant combinations from the 3- and 5-year revision rates. Thirty-seven implant combinations had their 15-year revision rates reported and 67 had the 10-year revision rates. The correlation co-efficients were 0.43 and 0.58 for the 3-year and 5-year revision rates against 15-year revision rates. Only 17% of the variance in 15-year revision rates could be predicted by a linear regression model from the 3-year revision rate and 32% from the 5-year revision rate. Corresponding values for the 10-year revision rates were 46% and 67%. 95% prediction intervals for the 15-year revision rate were +/− 3.1% from the 3-year revision rate and +/− 2.8% from the 5-year revision rate. Corresponding values for the 10-year revision rates were +/− 1.3% and +/− 1%. 19 of 37 implant combinations showed 15-year revision rate of more than 4%. Average 3-year and 5-year revision rates for this cohort was 1.0% and 1.42% compared to 1.4% and 1.9% for the rest and the difference was statistically significant. Although average early revision rates showed small but significant difference between the groups with lower and higher 15-year revision rates, the prediction intervals for 15-year revision rates for individual hips based on their 3-year and 5-year revision rates are very wide. Three- and 5-year revision rates for primary total hip replacements are poor predictors of 15-year revision rates

Aims. The burden of revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) continues to grow. The surgery is complex and associated with significant costs. Regional rTHA networks have been proposed to improve outcomes and to reduce re-revisions, and therefore costs. The aim of this study was to accurately quantify the cost and reimbursement for a rTHA service, and to assess the financial impact of case complexity at a tertiary referral centre within the NHS. Methods. A retrospective analysis of all revision hip procedures was performed at this centre over two consecutive financial years (2018 to 2020). Cases were classified according to the Revision Hip Complexity Classification (RHCC) and whether they were infected or non-infected. Patients with an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade ≥ III or BMI ≥ 40 kg/m. 2. are considered “high risk” by the RHCC. Costs were calculated using the Patient Level Information and Costing System (PLICS), and remuneration based on Healthcare Resource Groups (HRG) data. The primary outcome was the financial difference between tariff and cost per patient episode. Results. In all, 199 revision episodes were identified in 168 patients: 25 (13%) least complex revisions (H1); 110 (55%) complex revisions (H2); and 64 (32%) most complex revisions (H3). Of the 199, 76 cases (38%) were due to infection, and 78 patients (39%) were “high risk”. Median length of stay increased significantly with case complexity from four days to six to eight days (p = 0.006) and for revisions performed for infection (9 days vs 5 days; p < 0.001). Cost per episode increased significantly between complexity groups (p < 0.001) and for infected revisions (p < 0.001). All groups demonstrated a mean deficit but this significantly increased with revision complexity (£97, £1,050, and £2,887 per case; p = 0.006) and for infected failure (£2,629 vs £635; p = 0.032). The total deficit to the NHS Trust over two years was £512,202. Conclusion. Current NHS reimbursement for rTHA is inadequate and should be more closely aligned to complexity. An increase in the most complex rTHAs at major revision centres will likely place a greater financial burden on these units. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(8):559–566

Abstract. Introduction. Anxiety and depression are risk factors for poor outcome following knee replacement surgery. The aim of this study was to investigate the prevalence of anxiety and depression before and after primary (pKR) and revision knee replacement (rKR). Methodology. Retrospective cohort study. 315,720 pKR and 12,727 rKR recruited from the NHS Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) programme from 2013–2021. Anxiety and depression were defined using: (i) Survey question: “Have you been told by a doctor that you have depression? Yes/No”; (ii) EQ-5D anxiety/depression domain. Rates of EQ-5D anxiety/depression were investigated at baseline and at 6-months following surgery. The prevalence of depression was investigated by patient age and gender. Results. Overall, 28,434/315,720 (9.0%) pKR and 1,536/12,727 (12.0%) rKR reported pre-operative depression. For all age groups, depression was more common in female than male patients. Prevalence of depression reduced with age (<60 years: 16.8% pKR, 22.7% rKR; 80+ years: 5.3% pKR, 5.2% rKR). Depression was most prevalent in female patients, under 60 years undergoing rKR (25.6%). Pre-operation, 109,000/303,998 (35.9%) pKR and 5,433/12,216 rKR (44.5%) reported moderate or extreme EQ-5D anxiety/depression. Post-operation, 65,351/308,914 (21.2%) pKR and 4,176/12,409 rKR (33.7%) reported moderate or extreme EQ-5D anxiety/depression. Conclusion. Anxiety and depression were prevalent in patients undergoing knee replacement surgery. Patients undergoing revision procedures, female patients and younger patients had the highest rates of depression. Large improvements in anxiety/depression were observed at early follow-up after pKR and rKR

Different techniques have been described to address massive bone loss of the acetabulum in revision hip surgery. aMace has gained popularity as it provides customization aiming to restore hip centre and provide good initial stability in cases of large non-contained defects. It takes into account quality of host bone. Its porous defect filling scaffold provides an excellent surface for osteointegration. Our aim was to assess the short and mid-term outcomes of patients who underwent revision surgery using aMace system. Ethical approval was obtained. A retrospective study included all patients who had aMace between June 2013 and October 2022 allowing for a minimum of 12-months follow-up. Patients’ demographics, indication, bone-loss severity, reconstruction details, re-operation, complications, mortality, pain and function were assessed. 52 cases were performed by 13 surgeons with median 51 months follow-up. Median age was 72.7 years. 86.5% were female. Average BMI was 25.3. Average ASA grade was 3. 65% were classified as Paprosky IIIB and 32% were IIIA. 73% were found to have poor bone quality on CT. Main indication for aMace was massive bone loss/discontinuity secondary to aseptic loosening in 88.5%. 77% underwent single-stage revision. 53.8% had 2 or more previous revisions. 71% underwent stem revision in the same setting. 77% received a dual mobility bearing. Re-operation rate was 5.7% for instability and femoral PPF. LLD was reported in 9.6%. Permanent Sciatic nerve palsy occurred in 3.8% of the cases. 30-days mortality was 1.9%. Statistically significant post-op improvements in pain and mobility were reported (p<0.001). None of the acetabular components have been revised. Our study shows satisfactory surgical outcomes with a relatively low complication rate and significant pain and mobility improvements in the early to mid-term stages. We recommend these costly cases to be done in highly specialist centres adopting MDT approach

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

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is associated with a higher risk of revision compared with total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The outcomes of knee arthroplasty are typically presented as implant survival or incidence of revision after a set number of years, which can be difficult for patients and clinicians to conceptualise. We aimed to calculate the ‘lifetime risk’ of revision for UKA as a more relatable estimate of risk projection over a patient's remaining lifetime, and make comparisons to TKA. All primary UKAS performed from 1999 to 2019 (n=13,481) captured by the New Zealand Joint Registry (NZJR) were included. The lifetime risk of revision was calculated and stratified by age, gender and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) status. The lifetime risk of revision for UKA was highest in the youngest patients (46-50 years; 40.4%) and lowest in the oldest patients (86-90 years; 3.7%). Lifetime risk of revision was higher for females (range 4.3%-43.4% cf. males 2.9%-37.4%) and patients with higher ASA status (ASA 3-4 range 8.8%-41.2% cf. ASA 1 1.8%-29.8%), regardless of age. The lifetime risk of UKA was two-fold higher than TKA (ranging from 3.7%-40.4% UKA, 1.6%-22.4% TKA) across all age groups. Increased risk of revision in the younger patients was associated with aseptic loosening in both males and females, and pain in females. Periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) accounted for 4% of all UKA revisions, in contrast to 27% for TKA; risk of PJI was higher for males than females for both procedures. The lifetime risk of revision is a more meaningful measure of arthroplasty outcomes and can aid with patient counselling prior to UKA. Findings from this study show the increased lifetime risk of UKA revision for younger patients, females and those with higher ASA status

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. Methods. A total of 2,272 patients undergoing primary medial and lateral UKA at four large tertiary hospitals between 2000 and 2017 were included. A total of 158 patients underwent subsequent revision with mean follow-up of 8 years. A systematic review of clinical findings, radiographs and operative data was performed to identify revision cases and to determine the reasons for revision using a standardised protocol. These were compared to reasons reported to the NZJR using Chi-squared and Fisher exact tests. Results. Osteoarthritis progression was the most common reason for revision on systematic clinical review (30%), however this was underreported to the registry (4%, p<0.001). A larger proportion of revisions reported to the registry were for ‘unexplained pain’ (30% of cases vs. 4% on clinical review, p<0.001). A reason for revision was not reported to the registry for 24 (15%) of cases. Discussion and Conclusion. We found significant inaccuracies in registry-reported reasons for revision following UKA. These included over-reporting of ‘unexplained pain’, under-reporting of osteoarthritis progression, and failure to identify a reason for revision. Efforts to improve registry capture of revision reasons for UKA should focus on increasing accuracy in these three areas. This could be addressed through standardised recording methods and tailored revision reason options for UKA for surgeons to select when recording the reasons

Aims. Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing (MoM-HR) has seen decreased usage due to safety and longevity concerns. Joint registries have highlighted the risks in females, smaller hips, and hip dysplasia. This study aimed to identify if reported risk factors are linked to revision in a long-term follow-up of MoM-HR performed by a non-designer surgeon. Methods. A retrospective review of consecutive MoM hip arthroplasties (MoM-HRAs) using Birmingham Hip Resurfacing was conducted. Data on procedure side, indication, implant sizes and orientation, highest blood cobalt and chromium ion concentrations, and all-cause revision were collected from local and UK National Joint Registry records. Results. A total of 243 hips (205 patients (163 male, 80 female; mean age at surgery 55.3 years (range 25.7 to 75.3)) with MoM-HRA performed between April 2003 and October 2020 were included. Mean follow-up was 11.2 years (range 0.3 to 17.8). Osteoarthritis was the most common indication (93.8%), and 13 hips (5.3%; 7M:6F) showed dysplasia (lateral centre-edge angle < 25°). Acetabular cups were implanted at a median of 45.4° abduction (interquartile range 41.9° - 48.3°) and stems neutral or valgus to the native neck-shaft angle. In all, 11 hips (4.5%; one male, ten females) in ten patients underwent revision surgery at a mean of 7.4 years (range 2.8 to 14.2), giving a cumulative survival rate of 94.8% (95% confidence interval (CI) 91.6% to 98.0%) at ten years, and 93.4% (95% CI 89.3% to 97.6%) at 17 years. For aseptic revision, male survivorship was 100% at 17 years, and 89.6% (95% CI 83.1% to 96.7%) at ten and 17 years for females. Increased metal ion levels were implicated in 50% of female revisions, with the remaining being revised for unexplained pain or avascular necrosis. Conclusion. The Birmingham MoM-HR showed 100% survivorship in males, exceeding the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence ‘5% at ten years’ threshold. Female sex and small component sizes are independent risk factors. Dysplasia alone is not a contraindication to resurfacing. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(11):853–858

Abstract. Introduction. Our aim was to investigate trends in the incidence rate and main indication for revision knee replacement (rKR) over the past 15 years in the UK. Methodology. Cross-sectional study from 2006 - 2020 using data from the National Joint Registry (NJR). Crude incidence rates were calculated using population statistics from the Office for National Statistics. Results. Annual total counts of rKR increased from 2743 procedures in 2006 to 6819 procedures in 2019 (149% increase). The incidence rate of rKR increased from 6.3 per 100,000 adults in 2006 (95% CI 6.1 to 6.5) to 14 per 100,000 adults in 2019 (95% CI 14 to 14). Annual increases in the incidence rate of rKR became smaller over the study period. The incidence of rKR was highest in patients aged 70–79 years (50 per 100,000 adults [95% CI 48 to 52]). Aseptic loosening was the most frequent indication for rKR overall (20.5% procedures). However, rKR for aseptic loosening peaked in 2012 and subsequently decreased. rKR for infection increased incrementally over the study period to become the most frequent indication for rKR in 2019 (2.7 per 100,000 adults [95% CI 2.6 to 2.9]). Infection accounted for 17.2% first linked rKR, 36.7% second linked rKR and 50.7% third or more linked rKR. Conclusion. Recent trends suggest slowing of the rate of increase in the incidence of rKR. Infection is now the most common indication for rKR, following recent decreases in rKR for aseptic loosening. Infection was prevalent in re-revision KR procedures

Aims. Robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (R-UKA) has been proposed as an approach to improve the results of the conventional manual UKA (C-UKA). The aim of this meta-analysis was to analyze the studies comparing R-UKA and C-UKA in terms of clinical outcomes, radiological results, operating time, complications, and revisions. Methods. The literature search was conducted on three databases (PubMed, Cochrane, and Web of Science) on 20 February 2024 according to the guidelines for Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA). Inclusion criteria were comparative studies, written in the English language, with no time limitations, on the comparison of R-UKA and C-UKA. The quality of each article was assessed using the Downs and Black Checklist for Measuring Quality. Results. Among the 3,669 articles retrieved, 21 studies on 19 series of patients were included. A total of 3,074 patients (59.5% female and 40.5% male; mean age 65.2 years (SD 3.9); mean BMI 27.4 kg/m. 2. (SD 2.2)) were analyzed. R-UKA obtained a superior Knee Society Score improvement compared to C-UKA (mean difference (MD) 4.9; p < 0.001) and better Forgotten Joint Score postoperative values (MD 5.5; p = 0.032). The analysis of radiological outcomes did not find a statistically significant difference between the two approaches. R-UKA showed longer operating time (MD 15.6; p < 0.001), but reduced complication and revision rates compared to C-UKA (5.2% vs 10.1% and 4.1% vs 7.2%, respectively). Conclusion. This meta-analysis showed that the robotic approach for UKA provided a significant improvement in functional outcomes compared to the conventional manual technique. R-UKA showed similar radiological results and longer operating time, but reduced complication and revision rates compared to C-UKA. Overall, R-UKA seems to provide relevant benefits over C-UKA in the management of patients undergoing UKA. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(5):374–384

Implants in total hip replacement (THR) are associated with different clinical and cost-effectiveness profiles,. We estimate the costs and outcomes for NHS patients in the year after THR associated with implant bearing materials using linked routinely collected data. We linked NJR primary elective THR patients for osteoarthritis to HES and National PROMs. We estimated health care costs, health-related quality of life indices, and revision risks, in the year after primary and revision THRs overall. We used generalised linear models adjusting for patient and hospital characteristics and estimated 10-year cumulative probability of revision. We imputed utilities using chained equations for half the sample with missing PROMS. We linked 577,973 elective primary THRs and 11,812 subsequent revisions. One year after primary THR, patients with the cemented THRs using cobalt chrome or stainless steel head with HCLPE liner/cup cost the NHS, on average, £13,101 (95%CI £13,080,£13,122), had an average quality-of-life score of 0.788 (95%CI 0.787,0.788), and a 10-year revision probability of 1.9% (95%CI 1.6,2.3). Compared to the reference, patients receiving a cemented THR with delta ceramic head and HCLPE liner/cup, hybrid THR with delta ceramic head and HCLPE liner/cup, and hybrid THR with alumina head and HCLPE liner/cup had lower 1-year costs (-£572 \[95% CI -£775,-£385\], -£346 \[-£501,-£192\], -£371 \[-£574,-£168\] respectively), better quality of life (0.007 \[95% CI 0.003,0.011\], 0.013 \[0.010,0.016\], 0.009 \[0.005,0.013\] respectively), and lower 10-year revision probabilities (1.4% \[1.03,2.0\], 1.5 \[1.3,1.7\], 1.6%\[1.2,2.1\] respectively). Implant bearing materials are associated with varying mean costs and health outcomes after primary THR. Ours is the first study to derive costs and health outcomes from large, linked databases using multiple imputation methods to deal with bias. Our findings are useful for commissioning and procurement decisions and to inform a subsequent cost-effectiveness model with more granular detail on THR implant types

Aims. The outcomes of patients with unexpected positive cultures (UPCs) during revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remain unknown. The objectives of this study were to establish the prevalence and infection-free implant survival in UPCs during presumed aseptic single-stage revision THA and TKA at mid-term follow-up. Methods. This study included 297 patients undergoing presumed aseptic single-stage revision THA or TKA at a single treatment centre. All patients with at least three UPCs obtained during revision surgery were treated with minimum three months of oral antibiotics following revision surgery. The prevalence of UPCs and causative microorganisms, the recurrence of periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs), and the infection-free implant survival were established at minimum five years’ follow-up (5.1 to 12.3). Results. Of the 297 patients undergoing aseptic revisions, 37 (12.5%) had at least three UPCs obtained during surgery. The UPC cohort included 23 males (62.2%) and 14 females (37.8%), with a mean age of 71.2 years (47 to 82). Comorbidities included smoking (56.8%), hypertension (48.6%), diabetes mellitus (27.0%), and chronic renal impairment (13.5%). The causative microorganisms included Staphylococcus epidermidis (49.6%), Bacillus species (18.9%), Micrococcus species (16.2%), and Cutibacterium acnes (16.2%). None of the study patients with UPCs developed further PJIs or required further surgical intervention during follow-up. Conclusion. The prevalence of UPCs during presumed aseptic revision THA and TKA was 12.5%. The most common causative microorganisms were of low virulence, and included S. epidermidis, Bacillus species, Micrococcus species, and C. acnes. Microorganism-specific antibiotic treatment for minimum three months’ duration of UPCs in presumed aseptic revision arthroplasty was associated with excellent infection-free implant survival at mid-term follow-up. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(10):832–836

The Revision Hip Complexity Classification (RHCC) was developed by modified Delphi system in 2022 to provide a comprehensive, reproducible framework for the multidisciplinary discussion of complex revision hip surgery. The aim of this study was to assess the validity, intra-relater and inter-relater reliability of the RHCC. Radiographs and clinical vignettes of 20 consecutive patients who had undergone revision of Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA) at our unit during the previous 12-month period were provided to observers. Five observers, comprising 3 revision hip consultants, 1 hip fellow and 1 ST3-8 registrar were familiarised with the RHCC. Each revision THA case was classified on two separate occasions by each observer, with a mean time between assessments of 42.6 days (24–57). Inter-observer reliability was assessed using the Fleiss™ Kappa statistic and percentage agreement. Intra-observer reliability was assessed using the Cohen Kappa statistic. Validity was assessed using percentage agreement and Cohen Kappa comparing observers to the RHCC web-based application result. All observers were blinded to patient notes, operation notes and post-operative radiographs throughout the process. Inter-observer reliability showed fair agreement in both rounds 1 and 2 of the survey (0.296 and 0.353 respectively), with a percentage agreement of 69% and 75%. Inter-observer reliability was highest in H3-type revisions with kappa values of 0.577 and 0.441. Mean intra-observer reliability showed moderate agreement with a kappa value of 0.446 (0.369 to 0.773). Validity percentage agreement was 44% and 39% respectively, with mean kappa values of 0.125 and 0.046 representing only slight agreement. This study demonstrates that classification using the RHCC without utilisation of the web-based application is unsatisfactory, showing low validity and reliability. Reliability was higher for more complex H3-type cases. The use of the RHCC web app is recommended to ensure the accurate and reliable classification of revision THA cases

Introduction. Total ankle arthroplasty (TAA) is an increasingly popular treatment option for patients with end-stage ankle arthritis. However, for most implant systems, failure rates of 10–20% have been reported within the first 10 years after primary TAA. Pain is the primary symptom that indicates failure of TAA but cause of it can be difficult to establish. Methods. All patients who underwent a primary TAA at our center were included in the study. The clinical outcomes were studied for patients requiring a further revision procedure following primary TAA. The reasons for revision surgery and outcomes of surgery were analyzed using appropriate inferential statistical tests. Results. Between 2007 and 2018, 42 primary TAA required revisions in 40 patients. There were 25 men (59.5%) and 15 women (35.7%) with mean age of 57.5 years the time of primary TAA. All patients had undergone primary procedure at a mean duration of 3.5 years previously (range: 3 months to 10 years). Of the total revision procedures, 12/40 (30%) of revisions were carried out due to malalignment, 10/42 (23.8%) due to loosening of the implants or bone subsidence, 5/42 procedures (11.9%) following infection, 4/42 (9.5%) due to polyethylene migration, 1/42 (2.3%) due to fracture and 1/42 (2.3%) due to Charcot arthropathy. In 9/42 (21.4%) cases, imaging showed no objective reason for pain. 50% of patients who underwent revision TAA reported 78.5% satisfaction with results of surgery at 2 years follow up post-operatively. Conclusion. Major reasons for revising primary TAR at our centre are mal-alignment, implant loosening / bone subsidence and suspicion of infection and pain. In-spite of undergoing a complex revision surgery, patients report 78.5% satisfaction from outcomes of surgery

Background. Patients who undergo either primary or revision total ankle replacement (TAR) expect improvements in pain, function and quality of life. The goal of this study was to measure the functional outcome improvements and the difference in patient-reported outcomes in patients undergoing primary total ankle replacements compared to revision TAR. Methods. A single-center prospective cohort study was undertaken between 2016 and 2022. All patients were followed up for a minimum of 6 months. Patients undertook the Manchester Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MoxFQ) and EQ-5D health quality questionnaires pre-operatively, at 6 months and yearly for life. The Mann Whitney test was undertaken for statistical analysis. Results. A total of 165 primary and 71 revision ankle replacements were performed between 2016 and 2022. The mean age was 71 years for primary replacements and 69 years for revisions. The INFINITY was utilized in the majority of primary total ankle replacements. Revision replacements were either the INBONE II or INVISION and they were most often revising the MOBILITY implant. The main indication for revision was aseptic loosening (83%). Other causes included infection, malalignment and insert wear. The overall MoxFQ improved by a mean of 46.5 for primaries and 40.2 for revisions. The EQ-5D score also showed overall improvements with the mean difference in mobility increasing by 1.6. Conclusion. Both primary and revision ankle replacements result in improved functional scores at 6 months, 1 year and 2 years. In this cohort with the implants used, both primary and revision ankle replacements demonstrate similar improvements in functional scores

Implant fracture of modular revision stems is a major complication after total hip arthroplasty revision (rTHA). Studies looking at specific modular designs report fracture rates of 0.3% to 0.66% whereas fractures of monobloc designs are only reported anecdotally. It is unclear whether the overall re-revision rate of modular designs is higher and if, whether stem fractures or other revision reasons are responsible for this elevation. All revisions within 5 years after implantation of a revision stems (n. 0. =13,900; n. 5. =2506) were analysed using Cox regression with design (modular: n=17, monobloc: n=27), BMI, Sex and Elixhauser Score as independent variables. One stage and two stage revisions were analysed separately (1-stage: modular n= 7,102; monobloc n= 4,542; 2-stage: 1,551 / 704). The revision volume of the hospitals was also considered (low: <20 revisions, medium: 21–50 revisions, high: >50 revisions). For the 1-stage revisions, the re-revision risk after 4 years was 14,3% [13.2%, 15.5%] for monobloc and 17.4% [16.40%, 18.40%] for modular stems (p< 0.001). Stem fracture was the reason for re-revision in 2.4% of the modular (fracture rate 0.42%) and 0.6% of the monobloc revisions. The difference in re-revision rates between the designs was mainly due to differences in dislocation and stem loosening. For the 2-stage revisions, the revision risks for either design were similar (21.7% [18,5%, 25.4%] vs. 23.0% [20.8%, 25.4%]; p=0.05). Patient characteristics influenced the comparison between the two designs in the 1-stage group but very little in the 2-stage group. Modular revision stem fractures only contribute very minor to re-revision risk. In 2-stage revisions, no difference in overall re-revision rates between designs was observed. This might indicate that the differences observed for 1-stage procedures are due to differences between the patient cohorts, not reflected by the parameters available or surgeon choice

Introduction. Total ankle replacement as a valid treatment for end stage ankle arthritis, is gaining popularity and every year there is an increasing number of procedures. With revision rates as high as 21% at 5 years and 43% at 10 years there is a need for understanding and reporting the outcome of revision ankle replacement. Our aim was to study the patient reported outcomes following revision TAR with a minimum of 2 year follow up. Methods. All patients that underwent a revision total ankle replacement between 2012 and 2016 were included in the study. All patients received a post-operative questionnaire comprising of MOX-FQ score, EQ-5D (UK) and Foot and Ankle outcomes scores (FAOS) and patients satisfaction questionnaire with a minimum of 2 years follow up. Results. 33 patients had a revision total ankle replacement between 2012 and 2016. 2 patients were deceased therefore 31 patients were included in the study. 4 patients declined participation for completing questionnaires. We received 15/27 (55.5%) completed questionnaires. The mean MOX-FQ average domain score for pain was (50.6 ± 26.9), walking/standing (62.4 ± 36.5) and social function was (43.7± 31.0). The mean FAOS scores were (52.5 ± 30.6; pain), (54.5 ± 29.2; symptoms), (62.1 ± 30.5; ADL) and (35.5 ± 28.2; for quality of life). The mean overall health score today for EQ-5D was 73.9/100. 50% of patients were satisfied with the pain relief and return to sports and recreation obtained following the operation, 57% were satisfied with the improved in daily activities. 78.5% were overall satisfied with the results from surgery. Conclusion. Revision total ankle replacement gives overall satisfactory results demonstrated from patients reported outcomes at a minimum of 2 years following surgery

Introduction. A proportion of patients with hip and knee prosthetic joint infection (PJI) undergo multiple revisions with the aim of eradicating infection and improving quality of life. The aim of this study was to describe the microbiology cultured from multiply revised hip and knee replacement procedures to guide antimicrobial therapy at the time of surgery. Patients and Methods. Consecutive patients were retrospectively identified from databases at two specialist orthopaedic centres in the United Kingdom between 2011 and 2019. Patient were included who had undergone repeat revision total knee replacement (TKR) or total hip replacement (THR) for infection, following an initial failed revision for infection. Results. 106 patients were identified, of which 74 underwent revision TKR and 32 underwent revision THR. Mean age at first revision was 67 years (SD 10). Charlson Comorbidity Index was <2 for 31 patients, 3–4 for 57 patients, and >5 for 18 patients. All patients underwent >2 revisions, 73 patients received 3, 47 patients received 4, 31 patients received 5, and 21 patients received >6. After six revisions, 90% of patients cultured different organisms than the initial revision, and 53% of organisms were multi-drug resistant species. The most frequent organisms at each revision were coagulase negative Staphylococcus (36%) and Staphylococcus aureus (19%). Fungus was cultured from 3% of revisions and 21% of infections were polymicrobial. Conclusion. Patients undergoing multiple revisions for PJI are highly likely to experience a change in organisms and sensitivities with each subsequent revision. It is important to administer empirical antibiotics at each subsequent revision, appreciating known drug resistance from previous cultures. Our results do not support routine use of empirical antifungals

The advent of modular implants aims to minimise morbidity associated with revision of hemiarthroplasty or total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) to reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSR) by allowing retention of the humeral stem. This systematic review aimed to summarise outcomes following its use and reasons why modular humeral stems may be revised. A systematic review of Pubmed, Medline and EMBASE was performed according to PRISMA guidelines of all patients undergoing revision of a modular hemiarthroplasty or TSA to RSR. Primary implants, glenoid revisions, surgical technique and opinion based reports were excluded. Collected data included demographics, outcomes and incidence of complications. 277 patients were included, with a mean age of 69.8 years (44-91) and 119 being female. Revisions were performed an average of 30 months (6-147) after the index procedure, with the most common reason for revision being cuff failure in 57 patients. 165 patients underwent modular conversion and 112 underwent stem revision. Of those that underwent humeral stem revision, 18 had the stem too proximal, in 15 the stem was loose, 10 was due to infection and 1 stem had significant retroversion. After a mean follow up of 37.6 months (12-91), the Constant score improved from a mean of 21.8 to 48.7. Stem revision was associated with a higher complication rate (OR 3.13, 95% CI 1.82-5.39). The increased use of modular stems has reduced stem revision, however 40% of these implants still require revision due to intra-operative findings. Further large volume comparative studies between revised and maintained humeral stems post revision of modular implants can adequately inform implant innovation to further improve the stem revision rate