In 2022, approximately 60% of inserted cups and stems in Sweden utilized cemented fixation. Two predominant brands, Refobacin Bone Cement R and Palacos R+G, both incorporating gentamicin, were employed in over 90% of primary cemented Total Hip Arthroplasties (THAs) between 2012 and 2022. This study investigates whether the choice between these cement types affects the risk of revision.

The five most frequently used cemented cups and the three most common stems were studied. Inclusion criteria encompassed hips with non-tumour diagnoses, operated through a direct lateral or posterior incision, featuring a 28–36 mm metal or ceramic head. Outcomes were assessed for cup revisions (n=55,457 Refobacin, 37,210 Palacos), stem revisions (n=51,732 Refobacin, 30,018 Palacos), and all-cemented THAs with either brand (n=45,265 Refobacin, 26,347 Palacos). Kaplan-Meier life tables and hazard ratios (HR) utilizing Cox regression were computed, adjusting for age, sex, diagnosis, implant type, femoral head size, and material.

Over a 10-year period, the cumulative percent revision with Refobacin was consistently higher than Palacos in all three analyses (cups: Refobacin 2.4 (2.3–2.5), Palacos 2.1 (2.0–2.2); stems: Refobacin 2.6 (2.5–2.7), Palacos 2.1 (2,0–2,2); all-cemented: Refobacin 3.2 (2.9–3.5), Palacos 2.9 (2.6–3.2)). Both unadjusted and adjusted HR were 13–25% lower with Palacos. In the analysis of all-cemented THAs, the adjusted HR for Palacos was 0.85 (0.76–0.95). Separating revisions into infectious and non-infectious reasons revealed a lower risk of infectious revisions with Palacos in all three analyses (all-cemented: adjusted HR infection 0.66 (0.56–0.78); non-infectious 1.10 (0.94–1.28)).

Hips cemented with Refobacin may face an increased risk of infection, potentially due to a smaller release of antibiotics into surrounding tissues. Unaccounted factors like different mixing systems or unknown biases could also influence outcomes, emphasizing the need for further investigation.

Aim

Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a serious complication following total hip arthroplasty (THA) entailing increased mortality, decreased quality of life, and high healthcare costs. In 2009 a nationwide, multidisciplinary infection control program was launched in Sweden, PRISS, which aimed to reduce the PJI burden by 50%.

The primary aim was to investigate whether the PRISS project reduced PJI incidence after primary THA; the secondary aim was to evaluate other possible benefits of PRISS, such as shorter time to diagnosis.

In 1975, Sweden started registering primary knee replacement surgeries based on the personal identity number. Individual-based registrations of primary total hip replacements started in 1992 and for hemiarthroplasties the registration started in 2006. The completeness of these registrations is estimated at 98% during the last 10-year period. The long history and high completeness allow for accurate calculations of population-based prevalence of joint replacement and trends over time.

We used all data on primary joint replacements available in the Swedish Arthroplasty Register. The prevalence was calculated using number of alive patients with 1) at least one joint replacement 2) at least one hip replacement 3) at least one knee replacement at the end of each year from 2010 – 2021. Publicly available population numbers were retrieved from Statistics Sweden. We calculated total prevalence and prevalence per age in years.

By the end of 2021, 3.2% of the Swedish population had at least one hip or knee replacement. This was an increase from 2.5% in 2010. Among 80-year-old, the prevalence was 17.5% for any joint replacement. For both hip and knee replacement and all ages, the prevalence was higher for women. For knee replacement, the 2021 prevalence peaked at the age of 89 (9,4%) while the prevalence continuously increased with age for hip replacements.

A considerable proportion of the Swedish elderly population is living with at least one hip or knee replacement. The prevalence has increased during the last 12-year period for both hips and knees. An increasing prevalence may also affect the incidence of fractures and infections. Knowledge about the prevalence is fundamental for planning future demand for primary and revision hip and knee replacement.

Increased collection of patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) in registries enables international comparison of patient-centered outcomes after knee and hip replacement. We aimed to investigate 1) variations in PROM improvement, 2) the possible confounding factor of BMI, and 3) differences in comorbidity distributions between registries.

Registries affiliated with the International Society of Arthroplasty Registries (ISAR) or OECD membership countries were invited to report aggregate EQ-5D, OKS, OHS, HOOS-PS and KOOS-PS values. Eligible patients underwent primary total, unilateral knee or hip replacement for osteoarthritis within three years and had completed PROMs preoperatively and either 6 or 12 months postoperatively, excluding patients with subsequent revisions. For each PROM cohort, Chi-square tests were performed for BMI distributions across registries and 12 predefined PROM strata (male/female, age 20-64/65-74/>75, high or low preoperative PROM scores). Comorbidity distributions were reported for available comorbidity indexes.

Thirteen registries from 9 countries contributed data, n~130000 knee (range 140 to 79848) and n~113000 hip (range 137 to 85281). Mean EQ-5D index values (10 registries) ranged from 0.53 to 0.71 (knee) and 0.50 to 0.70 (hips) preoperatively and 0.78 to 0.85 (knee) and 0.83 to 0.87 (hip) postoperatively. Mean OKS (6 registries) ranged from 19.3 to 23.6 preoperatively and 36.2 to 41.2 postoperatively. Mean OHS (7 registries) ranged from 18.0 to 23.2 preoperatively and 39.8 to 44.2 postoperatively. Four registries reported KOOS-PS and three reported HOOS-PS. Proportions of patients with BMI >30 ranged from 35 to 62% (10 knee registries) and 16 to 43% (11 hip registries). For both knee and hip registries, distributions of patients across six BMI categories differed significantly among registries (p30 were for patients in the youngest age groups (20 to 64 and 65 to 74 years) with the lowest baseline scores. Additionally, females with lowest preoperative PROM scores had highest BMI. These findings were echoed for the OHS and OKS cohorts. Proportions of patients with ASA scores ≥3 ranged from 7 to 42% (9 knee registries) and 6 to 35% (8 hip registries).

PROM-score improvement varies between international registries, which may be partially explained by differences in age, sex and preoperative scores. BMI and comorbidity may be relevant to adjust for.

Aims

We compared the risks of re-revision and mortality between two-stage revision surgery and single-stage revision surgery among patients with infected primary knee arthroplasty.

Aim

Previous publications have suggested that the incidence of revisions due to infection after THA is increasing. We performed updated time-trend analyses of risk and timing of revision due to infection after primary THAs in the Nordic countries during the period 2004–2018.

Young patients are at increased risk of revision after primary THA (THA). The bearing surface may be of importance for the longevity of the joint.

We aimed to compare the risk of revision of primary stemmed cementless THA with MoM and CoC with metal-on-highly-crosslinked-polyethylene (MoXLP) bearings in patients between 20–54 years.

From NARA, we included 2,153 MoM, 4,120 CoC and 10,329 MoXLP THA operated between 1995 and 2017. Kaplan-Meier estimator was used for calculation of THA survivorship and Cox regression to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) of revision (95% CI) due to any and specific causes. MoXLP was reference.

The median follow-up was 10.3 years for MoM, 6.6 years for CoC and 4.8 years for MoXLP. 15 years postoperatively the Kaplan-Meier survival estimates were 80% (78–83%) for MoM, 92% (91–93%) for CoC and 94% (93–95%) for MoXLP. The 0–2, 2–7 and 7–15 years adjusted HRs of revision by any cause were 1.4 (0.9–2.4), 3.2 (2.1–5.1) and 3.9 (1.9–7.9) for MoM and 1.1 (0.8–1.4), 1.0 (0.7–1.3) and 2.5 (1.3–4.8) for CoC bearings. After 7–15 years follow-up, the unadjusted HR of revision due to aseptic loosening was 5.4 (1.2–24) for MoM and 4.2 (0.9–20) for CoC THA. MoM and CoC had a 7–15 year adjusted HR of revision due to ‘other’ causes of 4.8 (1.6–14) and 2.1 (0.8–5.8).

MoXLP bearings were associated with better survival than MoM and CoC bearings, mainly because of lower risk of revision due to aseptic loosening and ‘other’ causes.

To design osteoarthritis (OA) care based on prognosis, we need to identify individuals who are most likely of disease progression. We estimated survival time of the native hip and knee joint and evaluated what patient-related and OA disease-related factors associated with progression to joint replacement surgery.

We included 72,069 patients referred to first-line OA intervention (patient education and exercise) during 2008 and 2016 and registered in the Swedish quality register Better Management of Patients with Osteoarthritis (BOA). Kaplan–Meier survival analyses were used to estimate joint survival time. Hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence interval [CI] were calculated using multiple Cox regression.

The 5-year survival time of the native joint was 56% for hip OA and 80% for knee OA. Disease-related factors were more strongly associated with progression to joint replacement (e.g. willingness for surgery HR; hip 2.9 [95% CI, 2.7–3.1], knee 2.7 [2.6–2.9] and walking difficulties (HR; hip 2.2 [2.0–2.5], knee 1.9 [1.7–2.2]), than patient-related factors such socioeconomic factors (e.g. highest income quartile HR; hip 1.3 [1.2–1.3], knee 1.3 [1.2–1.4]) and comorbidities (e.g. ≥6 conditions HR; hip: 0.7 [0.6–0.7], knee; 1.1 [1.0–1.2]).

Patients with hip OA were more likely to undergo surgery and at an earlier time compared with those with knee OA. Progression was strongly influenced by factors associated with the OA disease, but other patient-related factors are important. However, a large proportion of patients with OA do not seem to require surgery, especially among those with knee OA.

Periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) are challenging complications following arthroplasty. Staphylococci are a frequent cause of PJI and known biofilm producers.

Reoperations for PJI of the hip or knee between 2012 and 2015 performed at Sahlgrenska University Hospital were identified. Medical records were reviewed, and clinical parameters recorded for patients whose intraoperative bacterial isolates had been stored at the clinical laboratory. Staphylococcal strains isolated from reoperations due to first-time PJI were characterised by their ability to form biofilms using the microtiter plate test.

The study group included 49 patients (70 bacterial strains) from first-time PJI, whereof 24 (49%) patients had recurrent infection. Strong biofilm production was significantly associated with recurrent infection. Patients infected with strong biofilm producers had a five-fold increased risk for recurrent infection.

Strong biofilm production was significantly associated with increased antimicrobial resistance and PJI recurrence. This underscores the importance of determining biofilm production and susceptibility as part of routine diagnostics in PJI. Strong staphylococcal biofilm production may have implications on therapeutic choices and suggest more extensive surgery. Furthermore, despite the increased biofilm resistance to rifampicin, results from this study support its use in staphylococcal PJI.

Introduction

As orthopaedics shifts towards value-based models of care, methods of evaluating the value of procedures such as a total hip arthroplasty (THA) will become crucial. Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) can offer a meaningful way for patient-centered input to factor into the determination of value.

Despite their benefits, PROMs can be difficult to interpret as statistically significant, but not clinically relevant, differences between groups can be found. One method of correcting this issue is by using a minimal clinically important improvement (MCII), defined as the smallest improvement in a PROM determined to be important to patients.

This study aims to find demographic and surgical factors that are independently predictive of failing to achieve a MCII in pain and physical function at 1-year following THA.

Arthroplasty registries have played a key role in the treatment of patients with various joint diseases and conditions since their conception. Swedish hip and knee arthroplasty registries were initiated in late 1970's. The main aim of registries was to create feedback to surgeons. During the last two decades with introduction of patient reported outcomes, data from registries have been increasingly used to compare caregivers and to improve quality of health care. According to the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register (SHAR) Sahlgrenska University Hospital had been underperforming during years 2006–2012. In order to improve the outcomes a systematic data driven approach using local and national registries, based on value based management was undertaken.

Representatives from all categories of healthcare staff and patients were invited to join a newly initiated group. The group was asked to define which measurement that contributed most to improve healthcare. Data from SHAR and local registries were used and seventeen different areas of improvement were identified. Several workgroups were initiated.

Between years 2013 and 2017 there was an increase of 60% in the annual volume of elective THAs. The length of stay decreased from 6.4 days to 1.8 days. Satisfaction with outcome of surgery increased from 76% to 90%. Adverse events decreased from 28% to 10%. The risk of re-operations within 2 years decreased from 2.4% to 1.9%.

Data from a national and a local registry were used to identify and implement changes in a large university hospital. Engaging member of staff and creating a graphical tool for continuous feedback drastically improved the quality of care whilst increasing the availability of hip replacements and reducing costs. This project demonstrates the power of registry data and a patient centered approach in engaging staff and improving healthcare.

The reported success rate after treatment with debridement, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR) of hip prosthesis infections has been found variable. We evaluated all reoperations performed because of infection and reported to Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register (SHAR) between 1999 and 2016. The analyses were separated into reoperations performed for the first time and those which had been preceded by at least one previous reoperation performed because of the same reason. The outcome was repeated reoperation performed because of infection.

1,882 were first-time procedures (Group I) and 2,275 had been preceded by at least one reoperation due to infection (Group II). Head and/or liner exchange had been performed in 47% of the cases in group I, and in 22% in Group II. The mean age varied between 70 and 71 years and there was a dominance of males in all groups (52–59%). Compared to all primary THR performed during this period (n=319,813) patients with inflammatory disease, idiopathic femoral head necrosis and sequel after childhood disease were overrepresented for this type of procedure.

Between 1999 and 2016 the number of DAIR procedures increased from 29 to 383 per year corresponding to 21 and 72 % of all reoperations performed due to infection. In first time reoperations the survival was 74.5±3.1% if the head/liner had been exchanged and 46.2±3.2% if only irrigation and synovectomy had been performed. In patients reoperated at least one time previously due to infection the survival rates dropped to 68.6±4.6% and 34.5±2.4%.

Compared to first time reoperation with exchange of femoral and/or liner, synovectomy and irrigation without exchange of any implant part(s) resulted in an almost tripled risk of a second reoperation due to same reason (Hazard Ratio: 2.8, 95% confidence interval: 2.4–3.3). In cases previously reoperated because of infection (Group II) exchange of head/liner and debridement had a 28% increased risk of failure compared to the corresponding first time reoperations (1.28 1.02–1.6). If none of the components were replaced in Group II, the risk ratio for a new failure increased almost 4 times (3.8 3.3–4.4). Presence of a cemented stem increased the risk for further reoperations due to infection (1.14 1.02–1.28), but not presence of a cemented cup (1.06 0.92–1.19). All hazard ratios were adjusted for age, gender, diagnosis and type of fixation.

The comparatively good results observed after exchange of head and liner might indicate that this is necessary to perform a sufficiently radical debridement. This observation could also be biased by a surgeon related factor suggesting that component exchange mainly is performed by surgeons with long experience of revision surgery.

The Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register started in 1979 and celebrates its 40^th anniversary in 2019. The Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register is not primarily a device register or research database; we strive to provide an overall assessment of the care provided with a multidimensional approach, and to disseminate knowledge on best practices in our network of participating hospitals. Since the inception of the register, there has been a marked change in trends and outcomes.

The completeness of registrations has been 97–99% for primary THA, 93–95% for revisions, and 95–98% for HA over the last 10 years. The register contains 371,125 primary THAs, 55,893 HAs, 83,233 reoperations, and 408,110 PROM responses registered in 352,585 unique patients. All outcome measures have improved over time; primary THA has 0.71% 90-day mortality, 94.3% 10-year implant survival, and 2.2% 2-year reoperation rate. At 1-year follow up, 91% of the patients report a clinically significant pain reduction, 76% report a substantial improvement in health-related quality of life, and 89% are satisfied with the result of the operation.

Moving forward, we are developing enhanced online applications for surgeons, patients and the implant industry to access real-time information. This work involves constructing a shared decision-making tool that helps clinicians assessing the future benefits and risks of THA by offering individualized outcome predictions. Further steps forward include randomized clinical trials and nested studies through the registry's platform. The trends and changes in Swedish arthroplasty practice have largely been promoted and facilitated by the register over the last 40 years.

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.

Background

Prosthetic implants used in primary total hip replacements have a range of bearing surface combinations (metal-on-polyethylene, ceramic-on-polyethylene, ceramic-on-ceramic, metal-on-metal); head sizes (small <36mm, large 36mm+); and fixation techniques (cemented, uncemented, hybrid, reverse hybrid), which influence prosthesis survival, patient quality of life, and healthcare costs. This study compared the lifetime cost-effectiveness of implants to determine the optimal choice for patients of different age and gender profiles.

The risk of dying following total hip replacement (THR) is low and has declined over the last decades. The influence of comorbidities and worse physical status on mortality leads to the idea that patient-reported health status may also be a predictor of mortality. Although this has not been demonstrated in THR surgery, some studies in other fields have reported an association. The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between patient-reported health status before THR and the risk of dying up to 5 years post-operatively.

The Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register runs a nationwide PROMs program including the EQ-5D questionnaire to routinely monitor patients undergoing THR in Sweden. For these analyses, we used register data on 42,862 patients with hip osteoarthritis operated with THR between 2008 and 2012. Relative survival ratio was calculated by dividing the observed survival in the patient group by age- and gender-adjusted expected survival of the general population. Multivariable modelling proceeded with time-transformed Cox proportional hazards. Pre-operative responses to the five EQ-5D dimensions along with age, gender, education status, year of surgery, and hospital type were used as independent variables.

As a group THR patients had a better survival than the general population. Broken down by the five EQ-5D dimensions we observed differentiated survival patters. For all dimensions, those reporting moderate problems (level 2) had higher mortality than those reporting no problems (level 1) and those reporting extreme problems (level 3) had higher mortality than those reporting level 1 or 2.

Worse health status according to the EQ-5D before THR is associated with higher mortality up to five years after surgery. The complexity of the interactions between different patient-factors associated with outcomes complicates accurate assessments of risks and expected benefits for individual patients. EQ-5D responses may be useful in a multifactorial individualized risk assessment before THR.

Prospectively collected data is an important source of information subjected to change over time. What surgeons were doing in 1999 might not be the case anymore in 2016 and this change in time also applies to a number of factors related to the performance and outcome of total hip replacement. We evaluated the evolution of factors related to the patient, the surgical procedure, socio-economy and various outcome parameters after merging the databases of the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register, Statistics Sweden and the National Board of Health and Welfare.

Data on 193,253 THRs (164,113 patients) operated between 1999 and 2012 were merged with databases including general information about the Swedish population and about hospital care. We studied the evolution of surgical volume, patient demographics, socio-economic factors, surgical factors, length of stay, mortality rate, adverse events, re-operation and revision rates and PROMs.

Most patients were operated because of primary osteoarthritis and this share increased further during the period at the expense of decreasing number of patients with inflammatory OA and hip fracture. Comorbidity and ASA scores increased for each year. The share of all cemented implants has dropped from 92% to 68% with a corresponding increase of all uncemented from 2% to 16%.

Length of stay decreased with about 50 percent to 4.5 days in 2012. The 30- and 90-day mortality rate dropped to 0.4% and 0.7%. Re-operation and revision rates at 2 years were lower in the more recent years. The postoperative PROMs are improving despite the preoperative pain scores getting worse.

Even in Sweden, always been considered as a very conservative country with regards to hip replacement surgery, the demographics of the patients, the comorbidities and the primary diagnosis for surgery are changing. Despite these changes the outcomes like mortality, re-operations, revisions and PROMs are improving.

Infection after total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a devastating complication. With an ageing population and increased demands for THA, prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is expected to become an even greater problem in the future. In late PJI a one- or two-stage revision procedure is most often used. Factors determining the outcomes are not fully understood and there is controversy in the choice between the two methods. The, two-stage method in infected THA is regarded as more resource demanding and is associated with a high distress in the patients.

The aim of this study was to compare the risk for second revision (re-revision) between one- and two-stage revision.

During 1979–2015, 1659 first-time revisions performed due to infection were reported to the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. Two-stage revision was the most common procedure (n=1255). Risk for a re-revision was compared between one- and two-stage revision using Cox-regression analysis adjusted for age, sex, diagnosis and method of fixation. The primary end-point was a re-revision regardless of cause. Aseptic loosening, infection, and dislocation necessitating re-revision were used as secondary outcomes.

There was no difference in risk of re-revision regardless of cause (HR (one-stage/two-stage)=0.9, 95% C.I.=0.7–1.1, p=0.3), re-revision due to aseptic loosening (HR=1.1, 95% C.I.=0.7–1.6, p=0.7) or re-revision due to infection (HR=0.7, 95% C.I.=0.5–1.1, p=0.2). Dislocation necessitating a re-revision was less common in the one-stage group (HR=0.4, 95% C.I.=0.2–0.9, p=0.03).

In this analysis re-revision rates were similar in the two groups. When analysed specifically for infection, risk of re-revision did not differ between one and two stage revision. Our findings confirm recent systematic reviews on the matter.

This observational study supports increased utilisation of the one-stage approach. However prospective randomized studies are needed to validate these findings.

During the last decade primary total hip arthroplasty surgery (THA) has increased with 30% in Sweden. Current law guarantees the patient a right to treatment within 90 days. The public health system has had difficulties meeting the increasing demand. Therefore, in 2012 a systematic review of the patients planned for THA was initiated at Sahlgrenska University Hospital's joint replacement unit. In late 2013 the value-based health care (VBHC) management was introduced in our unit.

In 2012 a systematic approach based on the Fast-Track concept was implemented in the joint replacement unit. In 2013 a workgroup consisting of health care professionals involved in the treatment of THA patients was created to improve chosen outcome parameters.

During 2011–2016 the number of elective THA has increased from 317 to 486. The cost per patient has decreased from 75,000 SEK to 65,000 SEK. Length of stay has decreased from 5.9 days to 2.5 days. Satisfaction with outcome of surgery one year after THA increased from 76% to 88%. The number of adverse events decreased from 29% to 11%. Number of re-operations within 2 years decreased from 2,7% to 1,9%.

Fast-Track and VBHC management was initially received with modest enthusiasm in our unit, and was regarded as means to increase production whilst possibly endanger the well-being of the patients. By using continuous feedback using the data collected it was possible to effectively communicate to patients and caregivers that the patients benefitted from the implementation.

VBHC primary aim is to improve patient outcomes and synergetically improve cost and process measurements. This should be appealing to both caregivers and administrators.

Focusing on improvement of outcomes after THA combined with VBHC management has contributed to improvement in quality of care and availability of treatment whilst decreasing cost per patient.

Introduction

When following patients with metal-on-metal (MoM) hip replacements, current evidence suggests that orthopaedic surgeons should avoid reliance on any single investigative tool. In 2014, guidelines for stratifying patients with MoM hip replacement into groups of low, medium, and high risk of failure based on multiple criteria were published. However, such risk stratification guidelines can be difficult to interpret due to the numerous risk factors related to MoM hip replacements. This is especially true for patients with various (high and low) risk levels for different criteria within the guidelines.

The first purpose of this study was to assess if a scoring system can be applied to the current MoM guidelines. The second purpose was to test, using this scoring system, how the contemporary guidelines would classify a cohort of patients with a recalled MoM hip replacement system.