Component mal-positioning in total hip replacement (THR) and total knee replacement (TKR) can increase the risk of revision for various reasons. Compared to conventional surgery, relatively improved accuracy of implant positioning can be achieved using computer assisted technologies including navigation, patient-specific jigs, and robotic systems. However, it is not known whether application of these technologies has improved prosthesis survival in the real-world. This study aimed to compare risk of revision for all-causes following primary THR and TKR, and revision for dislocation following primary THR performed using computer assisted technologies compared to conventional technique. We performed an observational study using National Joint Registry data. All adult patients undergoing primary THR and TKR for osteoarthritis between 01/04/2003 to 31/12/2020 were eligible. Patients who received metal-on-metal bearing THR were excluded. We generated propensity score weights, using Sturmer weight trimming, based on: age, gender, ASA grade, side, operation funding, year of surgery, approach, and fixation. Specific additional variables included position and bearing for THR and patellar resurfacing for TKR. For THR, effective sample sizes and duration of follow up for conventional versus computer-guided and robotic-assisted analyses were 9,379 and 10,600 procedures, and approximately 18 and 4 years, respectively. For TKR, effective sample sizes and durations of follow up for conventional versus computer-guided, patient-specific jigs, and robotic-assisted groups were 92,579 procedures over 18 years, 11,665 procedures over 8 years, and 644 procedures over 3 years, respectively. Outcomes were assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis and expressed using hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI).Abstract
Introduction
Methods
Revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) in the presence of femoral defects can be technically challenging. Reconstruction with long stems is widely accepted as the standard. However long stems can be difficult to insert and can compromise distal bone stock for future revisions. The aims of this study were to identify whether there was a difference in survival and outcomes following rTHA using a long versus standard or short femoral stem. A comprehensive systematic review was performed according to PRISMA guidelines using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Chochrane Library and Web of Science databases. Inclusion criteria were (i) adult patients >18 years; (ii) randomised controlled trials, joint registry, or cohort studies; (iii) single or staged rTHA for Paprosky 1–3B femoral defects. Exclusion criteria were (i) mixed reporting without subgroup analysis for revision stem length; (ii) ex-vivo studies. Screening for eligibility and assessment of studies was performed by the authors. Out of 341 records, 9 studies met criteria for analysis (including 1 study utilising joint registry data and 1 randomised controlled trial). Across studies there were 3102 rTHAs performed in 2982 patients with a mean age of 67.4 years and a male: female ratio of 0.93. Revision prostheses were long-stemmed in 1727 cases and short or standard in 1375 cases with a mean follow up of 5 years (range, 0-15 years). On subgroup analysis the use of a long cemented stem compared to a long cementless prosthesis was associated with fewer complications and periprosthetic fracture in older patients. Survivorship was 95% with short stems compared to 84% with long stems at 5 years. Moderate quality evidence suggests that in rTHA with Paprosky type 1-3B femoral defects, the use of a short or standard stem can achieve comparable outcomes to long stems with fewer significant complications and revisions. Using a shorter stem may yield a more straightforward surgical technique and can preserve distal bone stock for future revision.
