We investigated the revision rates of primary total hip replacement (THR) reported in the National Joint Registry (NJR) by types of bearing surfaces used.

We analysed THR procedures across all orthopaedic units in England and Wales. Our analyses estimated all-cause and cause-specific revision rates. We identified primary THRs with heads and monobloc cups or modular acetabular component THRs with head and shell/liner combinations. We used flexible parametric survival models to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (HR).

A total of 1,026,481 primary THRs performed between 2003–2019 are included in the primary analysis (Monobloc: n=378,979 and Modular: n=647,502) with 20,869 (2%) of these primary THRs subsequently undergoing a revision episode (Monobloc: n=7,381 and Modular: n=13,488).

Compared to implants with a cobalt chrome head and highly crosslinked polyethylene (HCLPE) cup, the all-cause risk of revision for monobloc acetabular implant was higher for patients with cobalt chrome or stainless steel head and non-HCLPE cup. The risk of revision was lower for patients with a delta ceramic head and HCLPE cup implant, at any post-operative period.

Compared to patients with a cobalt chrome head and HCLPE liner primary THR, the all-cause risk of revision for modular acetabular implant varied non-constantly. THRs with a delta ceramic or oxidised zirconium head and HCLPE liner had a lower risk of revision throughout the entire post-operative period.

The all-cause and indication-specific risk of prosthesis revision, at different time points following the initial implantation, is lower for implants with a delta ceramic or oxidised zirconium head and a HCLPE liner/cup than commonly used alternatives such as cobalt chrome heads and HCLPE liner/cup.

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

Short-stem total hip arthroplasty (THA) may have bone sparing properties, which could be advantageous in a younger population with high risk of future revision surgery. We used data from the AOANJRR, LROI and SAR to compare survival rates of primary THA, stems used in the first-time revision procedures as well as the overall survival of first-time revisions between a cohort of short-stem and standard-stem THA.

Short-stem THAs (designed as a short stem with mainly metaphyseal fixation) between 2007 and 2021 were identified (n=16,258). A propensity score matched cohort (1:2) with standard THAs in each register was identified (n=32,515). The cohorts were merged into a research dataset. Overall survival at 12 years follow-up was calculated using Kaplan-Meier survival analyses. Stem revisions (short-stem THA n=239, standard-stem THA n=352) were identified. The type of revision stem was classified as standard (<160 mm) or long (>160 mm). The survival rate of all first-time revisions in the two groups was calculated using any type of revision as outcome.

The 12 year- overall survival rate (all revisions, all causes) for primary short-stem THAs was 95.3% (CI 94.5–95.9%), which was comparable to 95.2% (CI 94.7–95.7%) for standard-stem THAs. In the short-stem THA group, a standard stem (<160 mm) was more often (59%) used in the first-time revision than in the standard-stem group (47%, p=0.004). The overall survival of the first-time revisions did not differ between cases primarily operated with a short or a standard stem.

In our multi-national register study, the overall survival rate of short stems was similar to that of standard stems. In short stem revisions there was a higher likelihood of using a standard-length stem for the revision compared with first-time revisions of standard stems. This finding might indicate bone-sparing properties with short-stemmed THAs.

One assumed function of Total Ankle Replacement (TAR) is that by maintaining ankle joint motion we can protect the other hind foot joints from further degredation¹. However, there is no work to our knowledge that compares hindfoot outcomes between TAR and arthrodesis. Sokolowski et al. found that 68% of TAR patients had no radiological progression of subtalar arthritis after TAR, and 4% went on to fusion². However, no evaluation of the other hindfoot joints was made and no comparison made to other treatment. We performed a retrospective review of all patients at our centre who had had a TAR or ankle arthrodesis since 2002. Case notes and imaging were reviewed and all instances of hindfoot treatment (injections or surgical procedures) noted. Patients were excluded who had no documentation, were followed up at other hospitals, had prior hindfoot fusion, or were having staged surgeries at the time of index treatment. Chi squared analysis was used to compare the cohorts. 214 arthrodesis cases and 302 TAR were eligible. The average age was 57. Average time to follow up was 13 years (4–21). At the time of abstract submission 107 sets of notes had been reviewed fully. Full analysis will be performed by conference. 14% of TAR patients went on to have further procedures to the hindfoot joints while 35% of arthrodesis patients had further procedures (p=0.014). There was also a significant difference in the number of patients progressing to fusion of a further hindfoot joint between groups (TAR- 4%, arthrodesis- 20%, p=0.01). These data suggest that TAR are protective of symptomatic change of hindfoot joints. Patients with TAR had fewer hindfoot fusions than those with arthrodesis and also fewer procedures of any form, including injections.

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.

Background

Total Ankle Replacement (TAR) is an established treatment option for end-stage ankle arthritis. We analysed at minimum, 10-year patient-reported and clinical outcomes of 156 TARs from a single centre. We specifically compared outcomes between patients under 60 and over 60 at time of surgery.

Introduction

Primary ankle arthroplasty (TAR) is increasingly used to treat end-stage ankle arthritis. Reported revision rates of TAR vary from 8.5% to 11.1% at 9 years. Revision surgery remains technically challenging with options ranging from simple joint debridement to tibio-talar-calcaneal fusion. The efficacy of these procedures remains unclear and there is no consensus on optimal revision options.

Introduction

Despite the increasing numbers of ankle replacements that are being performed there are still limited studies on the survival of ankle replacements and comparisons between different implants. The primary aim of this study is to link NJR data with NHS digital data to determine the true failure rates of ankle replacements. Secondary outcomes include analysis risk factors for failure, patient demographics and outcomes of individual prosthesis.

Introduction

This is a multi-centre, prospective, observational study of 503 INFINITY fixed bearing total ankle arthroplasties. We report the minimum two-year results of this prosthesis which was introduced to the UK Market in 2014 and is now the most used ankle arthroplasty in the National Joint Registry of England and Wales.

Arthroplasties are widely performed to improve mobility and quality of life for symptomatic knee/hip osteoarthritis patients. With increasing rates of Total Joint Replacements in the United Kingdom, predicting length of stay is vital for hospitals to control costs, manage resources, and prevent postoperative complications. A longer Length of stay has been shown to negatively affect the quality of care, outcomes and patient satisfaction. Thus, predicting LOS enables us to make full use of medical resources. Clinical characteristics were retrospectively collected from 1,303 patients who received TKA and THR. A total of 21 variables were included, to develop predictive models for LOS by multiple machine learning (ML) algorithms, including Random Forest Classifier (RFC), K-Nearest Neighbour (KNN), Extreme Gradient Boost (XgBoost), and Na¯ve Bayes (NB). These models were evaluated by the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve for predictive performance. A feature selection approach was used to identify optimal predictive factors. Based on the ROC of Training result, XgBoost algorithm was selected to be applied to the Test set. The areas under the ROC curve (AUCs) of the 4 models ranged from 0.730 to 0.966, where higher AUC values generally indicate better predictive performance. All the ML-based models performed better than conventional statistical methods in ROC curves. The XgBoost algorithm with 21 variables was identified as the best predictive model. The feature selection indicated the top six predictors: Age, Operation Duration, Primary Procedure, BMI, creatinine and Month of Surgery. By analysing clinical characteristics, it is feasible to develop ML-based models for the preoperative prediction of LOS for patients who received TKA and THR, and the XgBoost algorithm performed the best, in terms of accuracy of predictive performance. As this model was originally crafted at Ashford and St. Peters Hospital, we have naturally named it as THE ASHFORD OUTCOME

Hip bearing surfaces materials are typically broadly reported in national registry (metal-on-polyethylene, ceramic-on-ceramic etc). We investigated the revision rates of primary total hip replacement (THR) reported in the National Joint Registry (NJR) by detailed types of bearing surfaces used.

We analysed THR procedures across all orthopaedic units in England and Wales. Our analyses estimated all-cause and cause-specific revision rates. We identified primary THRs with heads and monobloc cups or modular acetabular component THRs with detailed head and shell/liner bearing material combinations. We used flexible parametric survival models to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (HR).

A total of 1,026,481 primary THRs performed between 2003–2019 were included in the primary analysis (Monobloc cups: n=378,979 and Modular cups: n=647,502) with 20,869 (2%) of these primary THRs subsequently undergoing a revision episode (Monobloc: n=7,381 and Modular: n=13,488).

Compared to implants with a cobalt chrome head and highly crosslinked polyethylene (HCLPE) cup, the overall risk of revision for monobloc acetabular implant was higher for patients with cobalt chrome or stainless steel head and non-HCLPE cup. The risk of revision was lower for patients with a delta ceramic head and HCLPE cup implant, at any post-operative period.

Compared to patients with a cobalt chrome head and HCLPE liner primary THR, the overall risk of revision for modular acetabular implant varied non-constantly. THRs with a delta ceramic or oxidised zirconium head and HCLPE liner had a lower risk of revision throughout the entire post-operative period.

The overall and indication-specific risk of prosthesis revision, at different time points following the initial implantation, is reduced for implants with a delta ceramic or oxidised zirconium head and a HCLPE liner/cup in reference to THRs with a cobalt chrome head and HCLPE liner/cup.

Total hip replacement (THR) is one of the most common and cost-effective elective surgical procedures. In the National Health Service (NHS) of England and Wales a myriad of implants for THR are offered at a variety of locally negotiated prices. This study aims to estimate the total burden of elective THR to the NHS, expenditure on implants, and different scenarios of cost changes if implant selection changed for different patient groups.

Using National Joint Registry (NJR) data and NHS reference costs, we estimated the number and expenditure of NHS funded primary and revision THR in the 10-year period 2008–2017 and forecasted the number and expenditure on THR over the next decade. Using NJR average NHS Trust prices for the different implant combinations we estimated the average cost of implants used in THRs and estimated the budget impact on NHS providers from switching to alternative implants.

The NHS spent over £4.76 billion performing 702,381 THRs between 2008–2017. The average cost of implants was £1,260 per surgery, almost a fifth of the cost of primary THR. Providing cemented implant combinations in primary elective THRs may potentially save up to £281 million over the next 10 years, whilst keeping 10-year revision risks low.

The NHS is likely to spend over £5.6 billion providing primary elective THR over the next decade. There are efficiency savings to realise in the NHS by switching to more cost-effective implant combinations available for patients undergoing primary elective THR surgery, but these will need to be balanced against the risks inherent to a change in selection of implants and surgical practice. The HIPPY programme will be conducting practice surveys, discrete choice experiments and a large randomised controlled trial of cemented, uncemented and hybrid fixation in THR for patients under 70 to answer uncertainties.

Aims

Metal and ceramic humeral head bearing surfaces are available choices in anatomical shoulder arthroplasties. Wear studies have shown superior performance of ceramic heads, however comparison of clinical outcomes according to bearing surface in total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) and hemiarthroplasty (HA) is limited. This study aimed to compare the rates of revision and reoperation following metal and ceramic humeral head TSA and HA using data from the National Joint Registry (NJR), which collects data from England, Wales, Northern Ireland, Isle of Man and the States of Guernsey.

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.

Aim

The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical relevance of an isolated positive sonication fluid culture (SFC) in patients who underwent revision surgery of a prosthetic joint. We hypothesized that cases with a positive SFC have a higher rate of infection and prosthesis failure during follow-up compared to controls with a negative SFC.

Abstract

Abstract

There is a paucity of mid-term data on modular dual-mobility (MDM) constructs versus large (≥40 mm) femoral heads (LFH) in revision total hip arthroplasties (THAs). The purpose of this study was to update our prior series at 10 years, with specific emphasis on survivorships free of re-revision for dislocation, any re-revision, and dislocation.

We identified 300 revision THAs performed at a single tertiary care academic institution from 2011 to 2014. Aseptic loosening of the acetabular component (n=65), dislocation (n=59), and reimplantation as part of a two-stage exchange protocol (n=57) were the most common reasons for index revision. Dual-mobility constructs were used in 124 cases, and LFH were used in 176 cases. Mean age was 66 years, mean BMI was 31 kg/m², and 45% were female. Mean follow-up was 7 years.

The 10-year survivorship free of re-revision for dislocation was 97% in the MDM cohort and 91% in the LFH cohort with a significantly increased risk of re-revision for dislocation in the LFH cohort (HR 5.2; p=0.03). The 10-year survivorship free of any re-revision was 90% in the MDM cohort and 84% in the LFH cohort with a significantly increased risk of any re-revision in the LFH cohort (HR 2.5; p=0.04). The 10-year survivorship free of any dislocation was 92% in the MDM cohort and 87% in the LFH cohort. There was a trend towards an increased risk of any dislocation in the LFH cohort (HR 2.3; p=0.06).

In this head-to-head comparison, revision THAs using MDM constructs had a significantly lower risk of re-revision for dislocation compared to LFH at 10 years. In addition, there was a trend towards lower risk of any dislocation.

Level of Evidence: IV

There is a paucity of long-term data on modular fluted tapered (MFT) stems for two-stage reimplantation following periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). The purpose of this study was to evaluate implant survivorship, radiographic results, and clinical outcomes in a large cohort of reimplantation THAs using MFT stems.

We identified 236 reimplantation THAs from a single tertiary care academic institution from 2000 to 2020. Two designs of MFT stems were used as part of an established two-stage exchange protocol for the treatment of PJI. Mean age at reimplantation was 65 years, mean BMI was 32 kg/m², and 46% were female. Median stem diameter was 19 mm, and median stem length was 195 mm. Mean follow-up was 7 years. A competing risk model accounting for death was utilized.

The 15-year cumulative incidence of any revision was 24%. There were 48 revisions, with the most common reasons being dislocation (n=25) and PJI (n=16). The 15-year cumulative incidence of any reoperation was 28%. Only 13 revisions involved the fluted tapered portion of the component (FTC), for a 15-year cumulative incidence of any FTC revision of 8%. Only 2 FTCs were revised for aseptic loosening, resulting in a 15-year cumulative incidence of FTC revision for aseptic loosening of 1%. Stem subsidence >5 mm occurred in 2% of unrevised cases, and all stems were radiographically stable at most recent follow-up. Mean HHS was 77 at most recent follow-up.

This series demonstrated that MFT stems were durable and reliable even in the setting of two-stage reimplantation for infection. While the incidence of aseptic loosening was very low, the incidence of any revision was 24% at 15 years, primarily caused by dislocation and recurrent PJI.

Level of Evidence: IV

There is paucity of reliable data examining the treatment pathway for hip replacements over the life of the patient in terms of risk of revision and re-revisions.

We did a retrospective observational registry-based study of the National Joint Registry, using data on hip replacements from all participating hospitals in England and Wales, UK. We included data on all first revisions, with an identifiable primary procedure, with osteoarthritis as the sole indication for the original primary procedure. Kaplan-Meier estimates were used to determine the cumulative probability of revision and subsequent re-revision after primary hip replacement. Analyses were stratified by age and gender, and the influence of time from first to second revision on the risk of further revision was explored.

Between 2003, and 2019, there were 29 010 revision hip replacements with a linked primary episode. Revision rates of revision hip replacements were higher in patients younger than 55 years than in older age groups. After revision of primary total hip replacement, 21·3% (95% CI 18·6–24·4) of first revisions were revised again within 15 years, 22·3% (20·3–24·4) of second revisions were revised again within 7 years, and 22·3% (18·3–27·0) of third revisions were revised again within 3 years. After revision of hip resurfacing, 23·7% (95% CI 19·6–28·5) of these revisions were revised again within 15 years, 21·0% (17·0–25·8) of second revisions were revised again within 7 years, and 19·3% (11·9–30·4) of third revisions were revised again within 3 years. A shorter time between revision episodes was associated with earlier subsequent revision.

Younger patients are at an increased risk of multiple revisions. Patients who undergo a revision have a steadily increasing risk of further revision the more procedures they undergo, and each subsequent revision lasts for approximately half the time of the previous one.