To determine the risk of total knee replacement (TKR) for primary osteoarthritis (OA) associated with overweight/obesity in the Australian population.

This population-based study analyzed 191,723 cases of TKR collected by the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Registry and population data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The time-trend change in incidence of TKR relating to BMI was assessed between 2015-2018. The influence of obesity on the incidence of TKR in different age and gender groups was determined. The population attributable fraction (PAF) was then calculated to estimate the effect of obesity reduction on TKR incidence.

The greatest increase in incidence of TKR was seen in patients from obese class III. The incidence rate ratio for having a TKR for obesity class III was 28.683 at those aged 18-54 years but was 2.029 at those aged >75 years. Females in obesity class III were 1.7 times more likely to undergo TKR compared to similarly classified males. The PAFs of TKR associated with overweight or obesity was 35%, estimating 12,156 cases of TKR attributable to obesity in 2018. The proportion of TKRs could be reduced by 20% if overweight and obese population move down one category.

Obesity has resulted in a significant increase in the incidence of TKR in the youngest population in Australia. The impact of obesity is greatest in the young and the female population. Effective strategies to reduce the national obese population could potentially reduce 35% of the TKR, with over 10,000 cases being avoided.

While clinically important improvements in Oxford Shoulder Scores have been defined for patients with general shoulder problems or those undergoing subacromial decompression, no threshold has been reported for classifying improvement after shoulder replacement surgery. This study aimed to establish the minimal clinically important change (MCIC) for the Oxford Shoulder Score in patients undergoing primary total shoulder replacement (TSR).

Patient-reported outcomes data were sourced from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Program. These included pre- and 6-month post-operative Oxford Shoulder Scores and a rating of patient-perceived change after surgery (5-point scale ranging from ‘much worse’ to ‘much better’). Two anchor-based methods (using patient-perceived improvement as the anchor) were used to calculate the MCIC: 1) mean change method; and 2) predictive modelling, with and without adjustment for the proportion of improved patients.

The analysis included 612 patients undergoing primary TSR who provided pre- and post-operative data (58% female; mean (SD) age 70 (8) years). Most patients (93%) reported improvement after surgery. The MCIC derived from the mean change method was 6.8 points (95%CI 4.7 to 8.9). Predictive modelling produced an MCIC estimate of 11.6 points (95%CI 8.9 to 15.6), which reduced to 8.7 points (95%CI 6.0 to 12.7) after adjustment for the proportion of improved patients.

For patient-reported outcome measures to provide valuable information that can support clinical care, we need to understand the magnitude of change that matters to patients. Using contemporary psychometric methods, this analysis has generated MCIC estimates for the Oxford Shoulder Score. These estimates can be used by clinicians and researchers to interpret important changes in pain and function after TSR from the patient's perspective. We conclude that an increase in Oxford Shoulder Scores of at least 9 points can be considered a meaningful improvement in shoulder-related pain and function after TSR.

The aim of this study was to examine the incidence of obesity in patients undergoing primary total shoulder replacement (TSR) (stemmed and reverse) for osteoarthritis (OA) in Australia compared to the incidence of obesity in the general population.

A 2017–18 cohort of 2,621 patients from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) who underwent TSR, were compared with matched controls from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) National Health Survey from the same period. The two groups were analysed according to BMI category, sex and age.

According to the 2017–18 National Health Survey, 35.6% of Australian adults are overweight and 31.3% are obese. Of the primary TSR cases performed, 34.2% were overweight and 28.6% were obese. The relative risk of requiring TSR for OA increased with increasing BMI category. Class-3 obese females, aged 55–64, were 8.9 times more likely to require TSR compared to normal weight counterparts. Males in the same age and BMI category were 2.5 times more likely. Class-3 obese patients underwent TSR 4 years (female) and 7 years (male) sooner than their normal weight counterparts.

Our findings suggest that the obese population is at risk for early and more frequent TSR for OA. Previous studies demonstrate that obese patients undergoing TSR also exhibit increased risks of longer operative times, higher superficial infection rates, higher periprosthetic fracture rates, significantly reduced post-operative forward flexion range and greater revision rates.

Obesity significantly increases the risk of requiring TSR. To our knowledge this is the first study to publish data pertaining to age and BMI stratification of TSR Societal efforts are vital to diminish the prevalence and burden of obesity related TSR.

There may well be reversible pathophysiology in the obese population to address prior to surgery (adipokines, leptin, NMDA receptor upregulation). Surgery occurs due to recalcitrant or increased pain despite non-op Mx.

While clinically important improvements in Oxford Shoulder Scores have been defined for patients with general shoulder problems or those undergoing subacromial decompression, no threshold has been reported for classifying improvement after shoulder replacement surgery. This study aimed to establish the minimal clinically important change (MCIC) for the Oxford Shoulder Score in patients undergoing primary total shoulder replacement (TSR).

Patient-reported outcomes data were sourced from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Program. These included pre- and 6-month post-operative Oxford Shoulder Scores and a rating of patient-perceived change after surgery (5-point scale ranging from ‘much worse’ to ‘much better’). Two anchor-based methods (using patient-perceived improvement as the anchor) were used to calculate the MCIC: 1) mean change method; and 2) predictive modelling, with and without adjustment for the proportion of improved patients.

The analysis included 612 patients undergoing primary TSR who provided pre- and post-operative data (58% female; mean (SD) age 70 (8) years). Most patients (93%) reported improvement after surgery. The MCIC derived from the mean change method was 6.8 points (95%CI 4.7 to 8.9). Predictive modelling produced an MCIC estimate of 11.6 points (95%CI 8.9 to 15.6), which reduced to 8.7 points (95%CI 6.0 to 12.7) after adjustment for the proportion of improved patients.

For patient-reported outcome measures to provide valuable information that can support clinical care, we need to understand the magnitude of change that matters to patients. Using contemporary psychometric methods, this analysis has generated MCIC estimates for the Oxford Shoulder Score. These estimates can be used by clinicians and researchers to interpret important changes in pain and function after TSR from the patient's perspective. We conclude that an increase in Oxford Shoulder Scores of at least 9 points can be considered a meaningful improvement in shoulder-related pain and function after TSR.

Obesity is a known risk factor for hip osteoarthritis. The aim of this study was to compare the incidence of obesity in Australians undergoing hip replacements (HR) for osteoarthritis to the general population.

A cohort study was conducted comparing data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) from 2017-18. Body mass index (BMI) data for patients undergoing primary total hip replacement and resurfacing for osteoarthritis were obtained from the AOANJRR. The distribution of HR patients by BMI category was compared to the general population, in age and sex sub-groups.

During the study period, 32,495 primary HR were performed for osteoarthritis in Australia. Compared to the general population, there was a higher incidence of Class I, II, and III obesity in patients undergoing HR in both sexes aged 35 to 74 years old. Class III obese females and males undergoing HR were on average 6 to 7 years younger than their normal weight counterparts. Class III obese females and males aged 55-64 years old were 2.9 and 1.7 times more likely to undergo HR, respectively (p<0.001).

There is a strong association between increased BMI and relative risk of undergoing HR. Similar findings have been noted in the United States of America, Canada, United Kingdom, Sweden and Spain. A New Zealand Registry study and recent meta-analysis have also found a concerning trend of Class III obese patients undergoing HR at a younger age.

Obese Australians are at increased risk of undergoing HR at a younger age. A national approach to address the prevalence of obesity is needed.

Increasing femoral offset in total hip replacement (THR) has several benefits including improved hip abductor strength and enhanced range of motion. Biomechanical studies have suggested that this may negatively impact on stem stability. However, it is unclear whether this has a clinical impact. Using data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR), the aim of this study was to determine the impact of stem offset and stem size for the three most common cementless THR prostheses revised for aseptic loosening.

The study period was September 1999 to December 2020. The study population included all primary procedures for osteoarthritis with a cementless THR using the Corail, Quadra-H and Polarstem. Procedures were divided into small and large stem sizes and by standard and high stem offset for each stem system. Hazard ratios (HR) from Cox proportional hazards models, adjusting for age and gender, were performed to compare revision for aseptic loosening for offset and stem size for each of the three femoral stems.

There were 55,194 Corail stems, 13,642 Quadra-H stem, and 13,736 Polarstem prostheses included in this study. For the Corail stem, offset had an impact only when small stems were used (sizes 8-11). Revision for aseptic loosening was increased for the high offset stem (HR=1.90;95% CI 1.53–2.37;p<0.001).

There was also a higher revision risk for aseptic loosening for high offset small size Quadra-H stems (sizes 0-3). Similar to the Corail stem, offset did not impact on the revision risk for larger stems (Corail sizes 12-20, Quadra-H sizes 4-7). The Polarstem did not show any difference in aseptic loosening revision risk when high and standard offset stems were compared, and this was irrespective of stem size.

High offset may be associated with increased revision for aseptic loosening, but this is both stem size and prosthesis specific.

Abstract

Deep infection after THA is a devastating complication that implies major suffering for the patients and large costs for society. Reports from multiple national and regional registries show increasing incidence of deep infection. Is this a consequence of improved diagnostics, changed virulence of the causative organism, increased co-morbidity of the patients?

An open database will be setup and hosted by an existing, high quality registry. All possible variables including patient demographic, detailed surgical information, bacteria/fungus characteristics, antibiotic treatment, radiographic findings and follow-up for 3 years will be collected. The incoming data will be displayed on a dashboard with continuous analyses and statistics. Any individual surgeon or hospital can report data.

A board with members from the International Hip Society and the International Society of Arthroplasty Registries will supervise the process and facilitate scientific analyses from collected data.

Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA) is a successful operation for the management of end stage hip osteoarthritis (OA) but long term success is limited by wear of the polyethylene bearing surface. The aim of this study was to compare the rate of revision at 15 years in patients <55 who had a THA for OA, and received either cross-linked (XLPE) or conventional non cross-linked polyethylene (non-XLPE).

The study population was all patients with primary THAs undertaken for OA from 1999 to 31 December 2016. Outcomes were determined for all procedures, comparing THA performed with non-XLPE and XLPE and including the effect of age, sex, and reason for revision. The principal outcome measure was time to first revision using Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship.

There were 17,869 procedures recorded for younger patients <55 years of age undergoing THA for OA and using either non XLPE or XLPE. There was a fivefold increase in the rate of revision for procedures using non-XLPE after seven years. The 15 year cumulative percent revision of primary THA performed for OA in patients <55 with non XLPE was 17.4% (95% CI 15.5,19.5) and for XLPE was 6.6% (95%CI 5.5,7.8) HR >7 years =5.3, p<0.001. Non-XLPE and XLPE were combined with three different femoral head bearing surfaces: ceramic, metal and ceramicised metal. Within each bearing surface, XLPE had a lower rate of revision than non-XLPE. For the most common head size of 28mm XLPE had a lower rate of revision.

The use of XLPE has resulted in a significant reduction in the rate of revision for younger patients undergoing THA for OA at 15 years. This evidence suggests that longevity of THA is likely to be improved and may enable younger patients to undergo surgery, confident of a reduced need for revision in the long term.

Background

The management of the patella during primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is controversial. Despite the majority of patients reporting excellent outcomes following TKA, a common complaint is anterior knee pain. Resurfacing of the patella at the time of initial surgery has been proposed as a means of preventing anterior knee pain, however current evidence, including four recent meta-analyses, has failed to show clear superiority of patellar resurfacing. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of patellar resurfacing compared to non-resurfacing in TKA.

Introduction

Infection remains a serious complication following primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). Many factors including primary diagnosis, comorbidities and duration of procedure are known to influence the rate of infection. Although the association between patient and surgical factors is increasingly well understood, little is known about the role of the prosthesis. This analysis from the Australian Registry (AOANJRR) was undertaken to determine if revision for infection varied depending on the type of bearing surface used.

Aims

To report the rate of early revision (within two years) after shoulder arthroplasty and identify any patient, disease or prosthesis factors that may be associated with these early failures.

Femoral stems with exchangeable necks are a recent development in hip arthroplasty. They are proposed to be better in restoring offset and leg length while not compromising the fixation in the femoral canal. Few studies have been published on the clinical and functional outcome of modular neck hip system.

The Australian Joint registry data was analysed to evaluate the outcome after modular neck hip arthroplasties with the diagnosis of primary osteoarthritis. Only prostheses with data for more than 50 patients were studied. The indications for revision were identified. A comparison of outcomes with conventional hip arthroplasties was done.

The analysis confirmed that femoral stems with exchangeable necks have a significantly higher risk of revision compared to all other primary total conventional hip replacement (adj HR=2.13; 95% CI (1.88, 2.42), p<0.001). With the exception of three, all femoral stems with exchangeable necks have a higher rate of revision compared to primary total conventional hip replacement. The three exceptions have a short follow up. There is an increased incidence of revision for loosening and dislocation.

The recent registry data suggests that with end point being revision, the outcome of exchangeable neck hips are worse than conventional hips in patients with primary osteoarthritis of hip.

As there is currently no evidenced-based and systematic way of prioritising people requiring JRS we aimed to develop a clinically relevant system to improve prioritisation of people who may require JRS. An important challenge in this area is to accurately assign a queue position and improve list management. To identify priority criteria areas eight workshops were held with surgeons and patients. Domains derived were pain, activity limitations, psychosocial wellbeing, economic impact and deterioration. Draft questions were developed and refined through structured interviews with patients and consultation with consultants. 38 items survived critical appraisal and were mailed to 600 patients. Eleven items survived clinimetric and statistical item reduction.

Validation then included co-administration with standardised questionnaires (960 patients), verification of patient MAPT scores through clinical interview, examination of concordance with surgeon global ratings and test-retest.

Ninety-six Victorian surgeons weighted items using Discrete Choice Experiments (DCEs). The DCE scaling generated a scale, which clearly ranked patients across the disease continuum. The MAPT differentiated people on or not on waiting lists (p<0.001), and was highly correlated with other questionnaires, e.g., unweighted-MAPT vs WOMAC (r=0.78), Oxford Hip/Knee (r=0.86/0.75), Quality of Life (r=0.78), Depression (r=0.64), Anxiety (r=0.60), p<0.001 for all. Test-retest was excellent (ICC=0.89, n=90). Cronbachs reliability was also high 0.85. The MAPT is now routinely administered across all Victorian hospitals undertaking arthroplasty where the response rate is generally above 90%. In the hands of clinicians the MAPT has been used to facilitate fast-tracking of patients with the greatest need, monitoring for deterioration in those waiting for surgery or having a trial of non-operative treatment and deferment of surgery for those that may benefit from further non-operative treatments.

The MAPT is short, easy to complete and clinically relevant. It is a specific measure of severity of hip/knee arthritis and assigns priority for surgery. It has excellent psychometric and clinimetric properties evidenced by concordance with standard disease-specific and generic scales and widespread use and endorsement across health services.

Long waiting times and a growing demand on services for joint replacement surgery (JRS) prompted the Victorian Department of Human Services to fund a University of Melbourne/Melbourne Health partnership to develop and implement an osteoarthritis (OA) hip and knee service delivery and prioritisation system for those who may require JRS.

The service delivery model consists of a multidisciplinary team providing, comprehensive early assessment, evidence-based interventions, including support for patient self-management, continuity of care processes, and prioritisation for both surgical assessment and JRS. Prioritisation occurs via clinical assessment and the Hip and Knee Multi-Attribute Prioritisation Tool (MAPT), a patient, clinician, or proxy-administered 11-item questionnaire, resulting in a 100-point scale ranking of need for surgery. The Hip and Knee MAPT was developed using intensive consultation with surgeons, state-of-the-art clinimetrics and with input from patients, hospital management groups. Ninety-six surgeons contributed to the developing the final scoring system.

Over 4000 patients per year are entering the system across 14 hospitals in Victoria. Under the supervision of the orthopaedics unit, musculoskeletal coordinator (MSC), typically an experienced physiotherapist or nurse, as part of the multidisciplinary team, undertakes early comprehensive assessment, referral and prioritisation of patients with hip or knee OA referred to orthopaedic outpatient clinics. In addition, the MSC coordinates the monitoring and management of patients on the orthopaedic surgery waiting list. The processes enable patients who are most needy (via higher MAPT score and clinical assessment) to be fast-tracked to orthopaedic surgery; conversely those patients with lower scores receive prompt conservative management.

Time to first assessment and waiting times to see a surgeon for many patients have reduced from 12+ months to weeks. Patients seen by surgeons are more likely to be ready for surgery and have had more comprehensive non-operative optimisation. Patients placed on the surgical waiting list receive quarterly reassessments and evidence of deterioration is used as a basis for fast-tracking to surgery.

The OWL system is a whole of system(tm) approach informed by patients needs and surgeons needs. Clinicians have developed confidence in the clinical relevance of the MAPT scores. Uptake of the OWL model of care has been very high because it facilitates better care and better patient outcomes.

Hip fracture is a common cause of hospital admission and is often followed by reduced quality of life, or by death. International experiences indicate there are many benefits to be gained from national hip fracture registries. This pilot project aims to implement a hip fracture registry at three sites, a large metropolitan public hospital (Flinders Medical Centre), a large metropolitan private hospital (Epworth HealthCare) and a rural regional hospital (Goulburn Valley Health) to assess the feasibility of establishing a national registry.

Patients undergoing surgery for a hip fracture will be recruited from the three participating hospitals between March and September 2009. A minimum data set will be collected at discharge, from hospital records. Items include patient demographics, fracture descriptors, length of stay, residential status, mobility, health status, surgical details and discharge destination. A phone interview at four months after surgery will measure outcomes by using the Extended Glasgow Outcomes Scale and documenting residential status, mobility, hip pain and readmissions. Re- operations, if any, will be collected. The availability of data from State Health Departments for validation of hospital case data will be reported.

The pilot study is in progress at the time of writing. Ethical approval has been obtained, data collection, transmission and storage systems have been developed and deployed, and case data collection is underway. Case data will be summarised to describe hip fracture at the participating hospitals. Analysis will review the data elements in the pilot data set and assess their priority for inclusion in a national register—taking account of the quality of the data obtained and the time and other resources required for their collection. We will also evaluate the four-month review process. Any potential obstacles to a national registry that are identified during the pilot will be described and ways to overcome them will be proposed.

A national hip fracture registry will improve the quality of care and safety of patients following hip fracture by developing an efficient mechanism to compare and improve the effectiveness of acute health care delivery by all hospitals involved in the management of hip fractures.

The five year results of 8187 primary total knee replacements undertaken for osteoarthritis in patients under the age of 55 years are presented. The casese were submitted to the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry in the period 1st September 1999 to 31st December 2006. This represents 6.3% of the 130,377 primary knee replacements recorded by the registry for this period.

The five year cumulative revision rate for patients under the age of 55 years was 8.0% (95% CI: 7.2 to 8.9). We compared the results to outcomes of older patients aged over 70 years at the time of surgery. The younger patients have a significantly higher risk of revision in the first five years (hazard ratio of 2.9; 95% CI= 2.59 to 3.26; p< 0.0001). Gender, mode of fixation, the use of cruciate retention or substitution prostheses or patella resurfacing did not significantly affect the rate of revision in those patients aged 55 years or less. Survival of fixed bearing implants was significantly better than that of mobile bearings. The most common reason for revision in this group was loosening (32.3%).

Total knee replacement in patients under the age of 55 years is associated with a much higher risk of revision in the first five years. A decision to proceed with total knee replacement in this age group should be accompanied by a careful explanation of this significantly increased risk compared to knee replacement in older individuals.

Introduction: In recent years some countries have shown increasing interest and use of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). Several studies have reported increasing use of UKA for osteoarthritis in younger patients with low revision rates. The aim of this study was to determine the outcome of UKA by combining two national databases containing prospectively collected data.

Method: Over 50 000 UKA procedures were analyzed to determine the cumulative percentage revision (CPR). Any reason for revision was used as the end point. The analysis was stratified according to age, gender and type of prosthesis to determine outcomes in patients younger than 65 years

Result: In this study both countries showed declining use of UKA in terms of the proportion of knee replacement procedures and of absolute numbers undertaken per year. The seven year CPR of UKA in patients younger than 65 years was 16.2%, and at 10 years was 17.5%. No significant difference was found between gender, however outcome did vary depending on the type of prosthesis used.

Conclusion: This study reports the outcomes from the two largest databases of UKA. Within 10 years of UKA a substantial number of revisions were seen in patients younger than 65 years, with varying results depending on the type of prosthesis used.

Introduction: Although Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty (HRA) has become a popular alternative to THR, the outcome of these procedures varies extensively between centres. This has been attributed to variations in patient selection, surgical experience, and patient volume. In this study we examine the effect of hospital volume on the outcome of hip resurfacing using a national database.

Methods: We examined data collected by the Australian Joint Registry between September 1999 and December 2006 relating to 8945 hip resurfacing procedures performed in 196 hospitals. Survivorship of the implanted components was calculated with revision as the end-point. The cumulative rate of revision at 4 years was compared between hospitals as a function of the number of cases performed during the study period (< 25, 25–49, 50–100, > 100 procedures). Using the log-rank test, differences in the risk of revision, corrected for age and sex of patients, were compared for low (< 25 cases) vs. higher volume centres (> 25 cases). We also estimated the number of cases/year of each centre and examined its apparent impact on revision rate.

Results: The majority (74%) of hospitals reporting performed less than 30 resurfacing procedures over the 7 year study period, with 64% of procedures performed at 16 “high volume” hospitals (> 100 cases), Overall, 249 of the 8945 resurfacing procedures (2.9%) were performed for revision of the original components. At 4 years, the cumulative revision rate dropped from 5.8% for hospitals performing less than 50 cases to 4.7% (50–99 cases) and 2.7% (> 100 cases) for larger volume centres. When adjusted for differences in patient age and sex, the risk of revision was 66% higher in hospitals performing < 25 cases. Based on the available data, the gap in revision rate between high and low volume centres is reduced by 50% once a surgeon’s operative volume exceeds 6 cases per year. On average, this corresponds to a learning curve of approximately 5 cases.

Conclusions: In this study, hospital volume is primarily a reflection of the operative experience of individual surgeons. Our results show that the outcome of hip resurfacing is strongly dependent on the experience of the surgeon and hospital performing the procedure. Even when adjusted for age and sex of the patients, the risk of revision increased by 66% when cases were performed at low volume centres. This supports the need for increased training of surgeons before undertaking hip resurfacing.

Introduction and aims: The extent of primary total hip and knee replacement revisions in the first 2 weeks following surgery is unknown. This study reports the incidence and reasons for revision of primary total hip and knee replacements within that period.

Method: Data was obtained from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOA NJRR). The AOA NJRR began data collection in September 1999, becoming national during 2002. This is an analysis of patients whose conventional primary total hip and/or primary total knee replacement and subsequent revision are recorded by the AOA NJRR with a procedure date on or before the 31st December 2006. Patient demographics, method of fixation used in the primary procedure as well as reasons for revision, and type of revision (major or minor) were analysed.

Results: The analysis involved 104,234 conventional primary THR and 134,799 primary TKR. There were 286 revisions (0.27%) of primary THRs and 102 revisions (0.076%) of primary TKRs in the first 2 weeks following surgery. The risk of revision was significantly higher for THR than TKR (P< 0.0001).

Dislocation (44.1%) was the main reason for revision of primary THR in the first 2 weeks after surgery followed by fracture (26.8%) and loosening (16%). The main reason for revision of primary TKR was infection (39%) followed by loosening (18%) and fracture (8.6%).

Most revisions of primary THRs in the first 2 weeks were major (66.4%). When only one major component was revised it was mainly the femoral stem (32.9% of all revisions). Almost all of these were cementless (94.7%). When a revision of a primary TKR occurred the majority were minor (69.6%) (p< 0.001). The insert (64.7% of all revisions) was the main component revised.

Risk factors associated with primary THR revision include a diagnosis of developmental dysplasia (P=0.030) and cementless procedures had a significantly higher risk of revision than either cemented (P< 0.0001) or hybrid (P< 0.0001) procedures. We did not identify any risk factors associated with primary TKR in the first 2 weeks following surgery.

Conclusions: The number of revisions of primary THR and TKR within the first 2 weeks of surgery remains small with approximately 1.6 per 1,000 procedures revised. The risk of revision was significantly greater for THR than TKR. Surgical technique was the main reason for revision of primary THR and infection for primary TKR.