The October 2024 Hip & Pelvis Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Does the primary surgical approach matter when choosing the approach for revision total hip arthroplasty?; Time to achieve the minimal clinically important difference in primary total hip arthroplasty: comparison of anterior and posterior surgical approaches; To scope or not to scope: arthroscopy as an adjunct to PAO does not provide better clinical outcomes at one year than PAO alone; Re-exploring horizons in hip resurfacing: two-year results of a ceramic-on-ceramic hip resurfacing; Association between tranexamic acid and decreased periprosthetic joint infection risk in patients undergoing total hip and knee arthroplasty; Octogenarians fare well: in revision for infection age is not a bar.

Aims. This study evaluates the association between consultant and hospital volume and the risk of re-revision and 90-day mortality following first-time revision of primary hip arthroplasty for aseptic loosening. Methods. We conducted a cohort study of first-time, single-stage revision hip arthroplasties (RHAs) performed for aseptic loosening and recorded in the National Joint Registry (NJR) data for England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the Isle of Man between 2003 and 2019. Patient identifiers were used to link records to national mortality data, and to NJR data to identify subsequent re-revision procedures. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard models with restricted cubic splines were used to define associations between volume and outcome. Results. Among 12,961 RHAs there were 513 re-revisions within two years, and 95 deaths within 90 days of surgery. The risk of re-revision was highest for a consultant’s first RHA (hazard ratio (HR) 1.56 (95% CI 1.15 to 2.12)) and remained significantly elevated for their first 24 cases (HR 1.26 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.58)). Annual consultant volumes of five/year were associated with an almost 30% greater risk of re-revision (HR 1.28 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.64)) and 80% greater risk of 90-day mortality (HR 1.81 (95% CI 1.02 to 3.21)) compared to volumes of 20/year. RHAs performed at hospitals which had cumulatively undertaken fewer than 167 RHAs were at up to 70% greater risk of re-revision (HR 1.70 (95% CI 1.12 to 2.59)), and those having undertaken fewer than 307 RHAs were at up to three times greater risk of 90-day mortality (HR 3.05 (95% CI 1.19 to 7.82)). Conclusion. This study found a significantly higher risk of re-revision and early postoperative mortality following first-time single-stage RHA for aseptic loosening when performed by lower-volume consultants and at lower-volume institutions, supporting the move towards the centralization of such cases towards higher-volume units and surgeons. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(10):1050–1058

The growth of life expectancy during the last decades has led to an increment in age-related conditions such as hip arthritis and fractures. On the other hand, these elderly patients will present a higher incidence of mental diseases which, in some studies, have been associated with inferior results. This study aims to evaluate the differences in early complication rates between patients with cognitive impairment compared with those without this condition following total hip replacement for osteoarthritis or fracture in the context of contemporary perioperative care protocols. We conducted a retrospective cohort study where cognitively-impaired patients who required primary hip arthroplasty were compared to a propensity-score matched cohort of patients without cognitive alterations. Early major complications were measured and analyzed in order to determine significant differences. Screening and matching. 1196 patients were identified during the study period. After screening for inclusion and exclusion criteria and matching, two cohorts comprising 65 patients each were compared. After performing the propensity-score match, no significant differences were found in covariates between the two groups. Outcomes. The occurrence of delirium was more frequent in patients with cognitive deficit (27.5%) than in the control group (9%), p<0.001. No significant differences were found among groups regarding myocardial infarction, venous thromboembolism, blood transfusion requirement, 30-day readmission, in-hospital death, 90-days death, dislocation or surgical site infection. The composite outcome of any adverse event did not exhibit a significant difference either. To our knowledge, this is the first study which demonstrates similar outcomes between patients with cognitive impairment and those without these alterations. Our results might indicate that contemporary protocols and implants are bridging the traditional gap between these two populations. These findings support the use of total hip arthroplasty in patients with mental alterations when indicated, especially in those institutions with strict perioperative protocols

We compared the risks of re-revision and mortality between two-stage and single-stage revision surgeries among patients with infected primary hip arthroplasty. Patients with a periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of their primary arthroplasty revised with single-stage or two-stage procedure in England and Wales between 2003 and 2014 were identified from the National Joint Registry. We used Poisson regression with restricted cubic splines to compute hazard ratios (HRs) at different postoperative periods. The total number of revisions and re-revisions undergone by patients was compared between the two strategies. In total, 535 primary hip arthroplasties were revised with single-stage procedure (1,525 person-years) and 1,605 with two-stage procedure (5,885 person-years). All-cause re-revision was higher following single-stage revision, especially in the first three months (HR at 3 months = 1.98 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.14 to 3.43), p = 0.009). The risks were comparable thereafter. Re-revision for PJI was higher in the first three postoperative months for single-stage revision and waned with time (HR at 3 months = 1.81 (95% CI 1.22 to 2.68), p = 0.003; HR at 6 months = 1.25 (95% CI 0.71 to 2.21), p = 0.441; HR at 12 months = 0.94 (95% CI 0.54 to 1.63), p = 0.819). Patients initially managed with a single-stage revision received fewer revision operations (mean 1.3 (SD 0.7) vs 2.2 (SD 0.6), p < 0.001). Mortality rates were comparable between these two procedures (29/10,000 person-years vs 33/10,000). The risk of unplanned re-revision was lower following two-stage revision, but only in the early postoperative period. The lower overall number of revision procedures associated with a single-stage revision strategy and the equivalent mortality rates to two-stage revision are reassuring. With appropriate counselling, single-stage revision is a viable option for the treatment of hip PJI

The August 2024 Knee Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Calcification’s role in knee osteoarthritis: implications for surgical decision-making; Lower complication rates and shorter lengths of hospital stay with technology-assisted total knee arthroplasty; Revision surgery: the hidden burden on surgeons; Are preoperative weight loss interventions worthwhile?; Total knee arthroplasty with or without prior bariatric surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis; Aspirin triumphs in knee arthroplasty: a decade of evidence; Efficacy of DAIR in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a glimpse from Oxford.

Ceramic bearing fracture is a rare complication following implantation using modern day ceramic bearing materials. Revision bearing options in such cases is debated, with the choice between ceramic-on-ceramic and ceramic-on-polyethylene bearings. Revision to a hard on soft bearing raises concerns about potential catastrophic wear secondary to a third-body reaction caused by the fractured ceramic particles. Data was collected retrospectively from the NJR, electronic patient records, revision database and picture archiving and communication system. Templating software was used to determine linear wear between first post-operative radiograph and the latest available follow up. Univariate analysis was used to examine patient demographics and the wear rates for revision of ceramic bearing fractures to ceramic on polyethylene components. The intra and inter-rater reliability of wear measurements was calculated. There were twelve patients identified as meeting the inclusion criteria. The average age at revision was 62 years (54–72). There were 6 liner and 6 head fractures revised to delta ceramic heads and cross-linked polyethylene acetabular components. The most frequently used head size was 32mm. At mean follow up of 3.8 years (0.5 6.1 years), median 4.4 years, linear wear rate was calculated at 0.08± 0.06 mm/year. Both intra-rater and inter-rater reliability was excellent with ICC scores of 0.99 at all timepoints. Revision to ceramic on polyethylene (CoP) bearings following ceramic fracture does not cause early catastrophic wear at early follow up. It appears safe to use this hard on soft bearing combination, given that wear rates are comparable to what is expected in a primary hip replacement setting. Longer follow up is required to establish if this trend persists

This study evaluates the association between consultant and hospital volume and the risk of re-revision and 90-day mortality following first-time revision of primary hip replacement for aseptic loosening. We conducted a cohort study of first-time, single-stage revision hip replacements (RHR) performed for aseptic loosening and recorded in the National Joint Registry (NJR) data for England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the Isle of Man between 2003 and 2019. Patient identifiers were used to link records to national mortality data, and to NJR data to identify subsequent re-revision procedures. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard models with restricted cubic splines were used to define associations between volume and outcome. Among 12,676 RHR there were 513 re-revisions within two years, and 95 deaths within 90 days of surgery. The risk of re-revision was highest for a consultant's first RHR (Hazard Ratio (HR) 1·58 (95%CI 1·16 to 2·15)) and remained significantly elevated for their first 26 cases (HR 1·26 (95%CI 1·00 to 1·58)). Annual consultant volumes of five/year were associated with an almost 30% greater risk of re-revision (HR 1·28 (95%CI 1·00 to 1·64)) and 80% greater risk of 90-day mortality (HR 1·81 (95%CI 1·02 to 3·21)) compared to volumes of 20/year. RHR performed at hospitals which had cumulatively undertaken fewer than 168 RHR were at up to 70% greater risk of re-revision (HR 1·70 (95% CI 1·12 to 2·60)), and those having undertaken fewer than 309 RHR were at up to three times greater risk of 90-day mortality (HR 3·06 (95% CI 1·19 to 7·86)). This study found a significantly higher risk of re-revision and early postoperative mortality following first-time single-stage RHR for aseptic loosening when performed by lower-volume consultants and at lower-volume institutions, supporting the move towards the centralisation of such cases towards higher-volume units and surgeons

Given the prolonged waits for hip arthroplasty seen across the U.K. it is important that we optimise priority systems to account for potential disparities in patient circumstances and impact. We set out to achieve this through a two-stage approach. This included a Delphi-study of patient and surgeon preferences to determine what should be considered when determining patient priority, followed by a Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) to decide relative weighting of included attributes. The study was conducted according to the published protocol ([. https://boneandjoint.org.uk/article/10.1302/2633-1462.310.BJO-2022-0071. ](. https://boneandjoint.org.uk/article/10.1302/2633-1462.310.BJO-2022-0071. )). The Delphi study was performed online over 3 rounds with anonymous ranking and feedback. Included factors were voted as either Consensus in, Consensus out, or No Consensus• following an established scoring criterion. A final consensus meeting determined the prioritisation factors (and their levels) to be included in the DCE. The DCE was then conducted using an online platform, with surgeons performing 18 choice sets regarding which merited greater priority between two hypothetical patients. Results were collated and analysed using multinomial logit regression analysis (MNL). For the Delphi study there were 43 responses in the first round, with a subsequent 91% participation rate. Final consensus inclusion was achieved for Pain; Mobility/Function; Activities of Daily Living; Inability to Work/Care; Length of Time Waited; Radiological Severity and Mental Wellbeing. 70 individuals subsequently contributed to the DCE, with radiological severity being the most significant factor (Coefficient 2.27 \[SD 0.31\], p<0.001), followed by pain (Coefficient 1.08 \[SD 0.13\], p<0.001) and time waited (Coefficient for 1-month additional wait 0.12 \[SD 0.02\], p<0.001). The calculated trade-off in waiting time for a 1-level change in pain (e.g., moderate to severe pain) was 9.14 months. These results present a new method of determining comparative priority for those on primary hip arthroplasty waiting lists. Evaluation of potential implementation in clinical practice is now required

Aims

Isolated acetabular liner exchange with a highly crosslinked polyethylene (HXLPE) component is an option to address polyethylene wear and osteolysis following total hip arthroplasty (THA) in the presence of a well-fixed acetabular shell. The liner can be fixed either with the original locking mechanism or by being cemented within the acetabular component. Whether the method used for fixation of the HXLPE liner has any bearing on the long-term outcomes is still unclear.

Aims

Manual impaction, with a mallet and introducer, remains the standard method of installing cementless acetabular cups during total hip arthroplasty (THA). This study aims to quantify the accuracy and precision of manual impaction strikes during the seating of an acetabular component. This understanding aims to help improve impaction surgical techniques and inform the development of future technologies.

The April 2024 Hip & Pelvis Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Impaction bone grafting for femoral revision hip arthroplasty with the Exeter stem; Effect of preoperative corticosteroids on postoperative glucose control in total joint replacement; Tranexamic acid in patients with a history of venous thromboembolism; Bisphosphonate use may be associated with an increased risk of periprosthetic hip fracture; A balanced approach: exploring the impact of surgical techniques on hip arthroplasty outcomes; A leap forward in hip arthroplasty: dual-mobility bearings reduce groin pain; A new perspective on complications: the link between blood glucose and joint infection risks.

Aims

The benefit of a dual-mobility acetabular component (DMC) for primary total hip arthroplasties (THAs) is controversial. This study aimed to compare the dislocation and complication rates when using a DMC compared to single-mobility (SM) acetabular component in primary elective THA using data collected at a single centre, and compare the revision rates and survival outcomes in these two groups.

Aims

The aim of this retrospective study was to assess the incidence of early periprosthetic femoral fracture (PFF) associated with Charnley-Kerboull (CK) femoral components cemented according to the ‘French paradox’ principles through the Hueter anterior approach (HAA) in patients older than 70 years.

According to the latest report from the German Arthroplasty Registry, aseptic loosening is the primary cause of implant failure following primary hip arthroplasty. Osteolysis of the proximal femur due to the stress-shielding of the bone by the implant causes loss of fixation of the proximal femoral stem, while the distal stem remains fixed. Removing a fixed stem is a challenging process. Current removal methods rely on manual tools such as chisels, burrs, osteotomes, drills and mills, which pose the risk of bone fracture and cortical perforation. Others such as ultrasound and laser, generate temperatures that could cause thermal injury to the surrounding tissues and bone. It is crucial to develop techniques that preserve the host bone, as its quality after implant removal affects the outcome of a revision surgery. A gentler removal method based on the transcutaneous heating of the implant by induction is proposed. By reaching the glass transition temperature (T. G. ) of the periprosthetic cement, the cement is expected to soften, enabling the implant to be gently pulled out. The in-vivo environment comprises body fluids and elevated temperatures, which deteriorate the inherent mechanical properties of bone cement, including its T. G. We aimed to investigate the effect of fluid absorption on the T. G. (ASTM E2716-09) and Vicat softening temperature (VST) (ISO 306) of Palacos R cement (Heraeus Medical GmbH) when dry and after storage in Ringer's solution for up to 8 weeks. Samples stored in Ringer's solution exhibited lower T. G. and VST than those stored in air. After 8 weeks, the T. G. decreased from 95.2°C to 81.5°C in the Ringer's group, while the VST decreased from 104.4°C to 91.9°C. These findings will be useful in the ultimate goal of this project which is to design an induction-based system for implant removal. Acknowledgements: Funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) – SFB/TRR-298-SIIRI – Project-ID 426335750

Aims

We aimed to assess the cumulative risk of total hip arthroplasty (THA) from in situ fixation for slipped capital femoral epiphysis (SCFE) after a follow-up of almost 50 years.

Aims

Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing (MoM-HR) has seen decreased usage due to safety and longevity concerns. Joint registries have highlighted the risks in females, smaller hips, and hip dysplasia. This study aimed to identify if reported risk factors are linked to revision in a long-term follow-up of MoM-HR performed by a non-designer surgeon.

Aims. This study describes the variation in the annual volumes of revision hip arthroplasty (RHA) undertaken by consultant surgeons nationally, and the rate of accrual of RHA and corresponding primary hip arthroplasty (PHA) volume for new consultants entering practice. Methods. National Joint Registry (NJR) data for England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the Isle of Man were received for 84,816 RHAs and 818,979 PHAs recorded between April 2011 and December 2019. RHA data comprised all revision procedures, including first-time revisions of PHA and any subsequent re-revisions recorded in public and private healthcare organizations. Annual procedure volumes undertaken by the responsible consultant surgeon in the 12 months prior to every index procedure were determined. We identified a cohort of ‘new’ HA consultants who commenced practice from 2012 and describe their rate of accrual of PHA and RHA experience. Results. The median annual consultant RHA volume, averaged across all cases, was 21 (interquartile range (IQR) 11 to 34; range 0 to 181). Of 1,695 consultants submitting RHA cases within the study period, the top 20% of surgeons by annual volume performed 74.2% of total RHA case volume. More than half of all consultants who had ever undertaken a RHA maintained an annual volume of just one or fewer RHA, however, collectively contributed less than 3% of the total RHA case volume. Consultant PHA and RHA volumes were positively correlated. Lower-volume surgeons were more likely to undertake RHA for urgent indications (such as infection) as a proportion of their practice, and to do so on weekends and public holidays. Conclusion. The majority of RHAs were undertaken by higher-volume surgeons. There was considerable variation in RHA volumes by indication, day of the week, and between consultants nationally. The rate of accrual of RHA experience by new consultants is low, and has important implications for establishing an experienced RHA consultant workforce. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(10):1060–1069

Aims

To describe the epidemiology of acetabular fractures including patient characteristics, injury mechanisms, fracture patterns, treatment, and mortality.

The August 2023 Hip & Pelvis Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Using machine learning to predict venous thromboembolism and major bleeding events following total joint arthroplasty; Antibiotic length in revision total hip arthroplasty; Preoperative colonization and worse outcomes; Short stem cemented total hip arthroplasty; What are the outcomes of one- versus two-stage revisions in the UK?; To cement or not to cement? The best approach in hemiarthroplasty; Similar re-revisions in cemented and cementless femoral revisions for periprosthetic femoral fractures in total hip arthroplasty; Are hip precautions still needed?