Revision knee arthroplasty is a complex procedure with the number and cost of knee revision procedures performed per year expected to rise. Few studies have examined adverse events following revision arthroplasty. The objective of this study was to determine rates of serious adverse events in patients undergoing revision knee arthroplasty with consideration of the indication for revision (urgent versus elective indications) and to compare these with primary arthroplasty and re-revision arthroplasty. Patients undergoing primary knee arthroplasty were identified in the UK Hospital Episode Statistics. Subsequent revision and re-revision arthroplasty procedures in the same patients and same knee were identified. The primary outcome was 90-day mortality and a logistic regression model was used to investigate factors associated with 90-day mortality and secondary adverse outcomes including infection (undergoing surgery), pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, stroke. Urgent indications for revision arthroplasty were defined as infection or fracture, and all other indications were included in the elective indications cohort. 939,021 primary knee arthroplasty cases were included of which 40,854 underwent subsequent revision arthroplasty, and 9,100 underwent re-revision arthroplasty. Revision surgery for elective indications was associated with a 90-day rate of mortality of 0.44% (135/30,826; 95% CI 0.37-0.52) which was comparable to primary knee arthroplasty (0.46%; 4,292/939,021; 95% CI 0.44-0.47). Revision arthroplasty for infection, however, was associated with a much higher mortality of 2.04% (184/9037; 95% CI 1.75-2.35; odds ratio [OR] 3.54; 95% CI 2.81-4.46), as was revision for periprosthetic fracture at 5.25% (52/991; 95% CI 3.94-6.82; OR 6.23; 95% CI 4.39-8.85). Higher rates of pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, and stroke were also observed in the infection and fracture cohort. These findings highlight the burden of complications associated with revision knee arthroplasty. They will inform shared decision-making for patients considering revision knee arthroplasty for elective indications. Patients presenting with infection of a knee arthroplasty or a periprosthetic fracture are at very high risk of adverse events. It is important that acute hospital services and tertiary referral centres caring for these patients are appropriately supported to ensure appropriate urgency and an anticipation for increased care requirements.
The objective of this study was to determine rates of serious adverse events in patients undergoing revision knee arthroplasty with consideration of the indication for revision and compare these with primary knee arthroplasty. Primary and revision arthroplasty procedures were identified in the national Hospital Episode Statistics and were linked by patient and side. A logistic regression model was used to investigate factors associated with 90-day mortality (primary outcome) and secondary serious adverse outcomes. Urgent indications for revision arthroplasty were defined as infection or fracture; other indications (e.g. loosening, instability, wear) were included in the elective cohort.Abstract
Introduction
Methodology
A revision knee replacement (rKR) network model has been introduced in the UK to improve clinical outcomes for patients and reduce healthcare costs. However, the current practice of different types of surgical unit is not well understood. The aim of this study was to answer: “How complex are rKR cases at a Major Revision Centre (MRC)?” Retrospective cohort study at the Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre, Oxford from 2015 - 2018. Case complexity was classified using the Revision Knee Complexity Classification (RKCC). Referral source, technical details of surgery and hospital admission impact were recorded.Abstract
Introduction
Methodology
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). 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.Abstract
Introduction
Methodology
Re-revision knee replacement (RR-KR) is complex surgery, with a significant impact on individual patients and health resource use. The aim of this study was to investigate early patient-relevant outcomes following RR-KR. 206 patients (250 knees) undergoing RR-KR were recruited from a major revision centre between 2015–2018. Patient-relevant outcomes assessed were: implant survivorship, complications (90-days), joint function and quality of life (final follow-up). Risk factors for further revision surgery at 1 year were investigated using multiple logistic regression.Abstract
Introduction
Methodology:
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. 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.Abstract
Introduction
Methodology
The Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (Smith & Nephew London, UK) is the most popular hip resurfacing (HR) in the UK. However, it is now subject to two Medical Device Alerts (MDA) from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). A cross-sectional survey of primary metal-on-metal hip procedures recorded on the National Joint Registry for England, Wales and Northern Ireland (NJR) until 5th November 2013 was performed. Cost-analysis was based on an algorithm for surveillance of HR at a tertiary referral centre and followed previous MHRA guidance. NIHR NHS Treatment costs were used. The local protocol encompassed: patient outcome scoring (Oxford hip score), blood metal ion measurement (cobalt, chromium), cross-sectional imaging (MRI) and discussion at an internet-enabled multidisciplinary team meeting (iMDT) in addition to routine hip surveillance.Introduction
Patients/Materials & Methods
The National Joint Registry (NJR) for England, Wales and Northern Ireland contributes important information on the performance of implants and surgeons. However, the quality of this data is not known. This study aimed to perform an independent validation of primary metal-on-metal hip procedures recorded on the NJR through linkage to the London Implant Retrieval Centre (LIRC). Primary, metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties performed between 1st April 2003 and 5th November 2013 were recruited from the NJR (n=67045). Retrieved, metal-on-metal components were recruited from the LIRC (n=782). Data linkage and validation checks were performed.Introduction
Patients/Materials & Methods
Retrieved metal-on-metal acetabular components are invaluable resources from which to investigate the wear behaviour of failed hip implants. New forensic and investigative techniques continue to be developed to help the surgeon further understand factors which contribute to early failure. We have developed a novel technique to locate the in vivo location of the primary wear scar of an explanted cup. Thirteen (13) patients with failed metal hip resurfacings were recruited and their acetabular components retrieved. A 3D wear map was generated and the precise location of the primary wear scar in each cup was identified using a coordinate measuring machine (CMM). This wear scar position and location was noted in relation to standard landmarks on the acetabular cup. All patients underwent a computerised tomography (CT) scan prior to revision surgery. The 3D positional map from the CMM was then co-registered with the implant on the patient's pelvic 3D CT scan.Introduction
Patients/Materials & Methods
Metal Artefact Reduction Sequence (MARS) MRI is being increasingly used to detect soft tissue inflammatory reactions surrounding metal-on-metal hip replacements. The UK MHRA safety alert announced in April 2010 recommended cross-sectional imaging such as MRI for all patients with painful MOM hips. The terms used to describe the findings include bursae, cystic lesions and solid masses. A recently used term, pseudotumour, incorporates all of these lesions. We aimed to correlate the pattern of abnormalities on MRI with clinical symptoms. Following our experience with over 160 MARS MRI scans of patients with MOM hips we recognized patterns of lesions according to their: wall thickness, T1/T2 signal, shape, and location. We categorised the 79 lesions from 159 MARS MRI scans of into our novel classification scheme of 1, 2a, 2b and 3. There were two groups of patients: well functioning and painful.Introduction
Method
We report a prospective study of clinical data collected pre, intra and post operation to remove both cup and head components of 118 failed, current generation metal on metal (MOM) hips. Whilst component position was important, the majority were unexplained failures and of these the majority (63%) had cup inclination angles of less than 55 degrees. Poor biocompatibility of the wear debris may explain many of the failures. Morlock et al reported a retrospective analysis of 267 MOM hips but only 34 head and cup couples (ie most were femoral neck fractures) and without data necessary to define cause of failure. The commonest cause of failure in the National Joint Registry (NJR) is unexplained.SUMMARY
BACKGROUND
