Aims

Custom-made partial pelvis replacements (PPRs) are increasingly used in the reconstruction of large acetabular defects and have mainly been designed using a triflange approach, requiring extensive soft-tissue dissection. The monoflange design, where primary intramedullary fixation within the ilium combined with a monoflange for rotational stability, was anticipated to overcome this obstacle. The aim of this study was to evaluate the design with regard to functional outcome, complications, and acetabular reconstruction.

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) has proved to be an effective treatment modality for sickle-cell hip arthropathy (mosaic-like dense bone due to infarcts). However, mode of failure, survival rates and challenges associated with revision hip arthroplasty in sickle-cell disease patients are mostly unknown. We retrospectively evaluated prospectively collected data from all patients with sickle-cell disease who underwent revision hip arthroplasty from 2016. Patient, surgery, medical and surgical complications related data were collected. The pinnacle and reclaim revision system with gription augments (JJ) was used in all patients. Pre-op and post-op clinical outcome data (both objective and subjective, HOOS Jr and OHS) were recorded. Cumulative success rates were recorded with re-revision surgery as an end point. We performed fifteen revision THAs on 13 patients (mean follow up of 6.6 years). The mean age of the patients was 48 years (range, 30–59). At final follow-up, a statistically significant improvement of mean OHS and HOOS JR scores eas found in all patients. reported (OHS: 34.0 and HOOS JR: 77.7). Cumulative success rate was 100% for re-revision for all reasons at 6 years. Five intensive care unit (ITU) admissions, two vaso-occlusive sickle cell crises, one transfusion-related complication and one acute chest syndrome (ACS) were recorded. On admission, the mean percentage of HbS was 75.25% (64.6–86.4%). Revision arthroplasty in sickle-cell disease patients poses increased risks, with medical and surgical challenges. However, with careful preparation, planning and a multi-disciplinary team approach, revision arthroplasty can result in excellent clinical outcomes and excellent functional scores in the majority of patients in the short and mid-term

Two-stage exchange arthroplasty is traditionally used to treat periprosthetic hip infection. Nevertheless, particularly in high-risk patients, there has been increased attention towards alternatives such as 1.5-stage exchange arthroplasty which takes place in one surgery. Therefore, we sought to compare (1) operative time, length-of-stay (LOS), transfusions, (2) causative organism identification and polymicrobial infection rates, (3) re-revision rates and re-revision reasons, (4) mortality, and determine (5) independent predictors of re-revision. Retrospective chart review of 71 patients who underwent either 1.5- (n=38) or 2-stage (n=33) exchange hip arthroplasty at a single institution (03/2019-05/2023). Demographics, surgical, inpatient, and infection characteristics were noted. Main outcomes evaluated were re-revision rates, re-revision reasons, mortality, and cause of death. Independent predictors of re-revision were assessed utilizing logistic regression. Mean follow: 675 days (range, 23–1,715). Demographics were not significantly different except for a higher proportion of 1.5-stage patients classified as American-Society-of-Anesthesiologists (ASA) status 3 or 4 (84.2 vs. 48.5%, p=0.002). Length of follow-up was significantly longer in the 2-stage group (924.4 vs. 458 days, p<0.001) as well as operative time (506 vs. 271 minutes, p<0.001). In the 1.5-stage group, there was a higher proportion of polymicrobial infections (23.7 vs. 3.0%, p=0.016), re-revision rates (28.9 vs. 9.1%, p=0.042) and periprosthetic infections as a cause of revision (90.9 vs. 0%, p=0.007). Mortality rates were not significantly different, and no patient died for causes related to infection. Type of surgery (1.5-stage vs. 2-stage) was the only independent predictor of re-revision (odds-ratio 4.0, 95% confidence-interval 1.02–16.16, p=0.046). Our data suggests that patients who undergo 1.5-stage exchange arthroplasty have a significantly higher re-revision rate (mostly due to infection) when compared to 2-stage patients. We acknowledge potential benefits of the 1.5-stage strategy, especially in high-risk patients since it involves single surgery. However, higher re-revision rates must be considered when counseling patients

Chronic pelvic discontinuity (CPD) during revision hip arthroplasty is a challenging entity to address. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical and radiologic outcomes, and complications of the “acetabular distraction technique” for the management of CPD during revision hip arthroplasty. Patients with CPD, who underwent acetabular revision between 2014 and 2022 at two tertiary care centres, using an identical distraction technique, were evaluated. Demographic parameters, pre-operative acetabular bone loss, duration of follow-up, clinical and radiologic outcomes, and survivorship were evaluated. In all, 46 patients with a mean follow-up of 34.4 (SD=19.6, range: 24–120) months were available for evaluation. There were 25 (54.3%) male, and 21 (45.7%) female patients, with a mean age of 58.1 (SD=10.5, range: 40–81) years at the time of revision surgery. Based on the Paprosky classification of acetabular bone loss, 19 (41.3%), 12 (26.1%), and 15 (32.6%) patients had type 3b, 3a, and 2c defects. All patients were managed using the Trabecular Metal™ Acetabular Revision System; 16 patients required additional Trabecular Metal™ augments. The mean HHS improved from 50.1 (SD=7.6, range: 34.3 – 59.8) pre-operatively, to 86.6 (SD=4.2, range: 74.8 -91.8) at the last follow-up. Two patients (4.3 %) developed partial sciatic nerve palsy, two (4.3%) had posterior dislocation, and one (2.2%) required re-revision for aseptic loosening. Radiologically, 36 (78.3%) patients showed healing of the pelvic discontinuity. The Kaplan-Meier construct survivorship was 97.78% when using re-revision for aseptic acetabular loosening as an endpoint. The acetabular distraction technique has good clinical and radiologic outcomes in the management of CPD during revision hip arthroplasty

Studies and meta-analyses worldwide show an increased use of one-stage revisions for treating periprosthetic hip infections, often yielding comparable or better outcomes than two-stage revisions. However, it remains unclear if these successful results can be consistently achieved nationwide besides large centers. This observational cohort study used data from the German Arthroplasty Registry (EPRD) to compare the mortality and re-revision rates between one-stage (n=8183) and two-stage (n=657) first-time revision total hip arthroplasty (RTHA). Kaplan-Meier estimates were applied to evaluate the re-revision rate and cumulative mortality for RTHA. There was a significant difference in mortality between one-stage and two-stage RTHA (p=0.02). One-year post-surgery, the mortality rate was 9.4% for one-stage revisions and 5.5% for two-stage revisions. At the five-year follow-up, the mortality rate for one-stage revisions was 25.5%, compared to 20.0% for two-stage revisions. No significant differences (p=0.30) were found in re-revision rates between one-stage and two-stage revisions after one year (one-stage 16.5% vs. two-stage 13.5%) or five years (one-stage 21.6% vs. two-stage 20.8%). For multiple revisions, the mortality differences were even larger (p<0.001), with a one-year mortality rate of 12.8% for one-stage RTHA and 5.7% for two-stage RTHA. Despite the excellent results of one-stage RTHA in the literature from individual large centers, it shows a significantly higher mortality rate with equal re-revision rate compared to two-stage revision in the nationwide care besides large centers. Significant differences can already be seen within the first year, indicating an increased perioperative mortality for one-stage revision, which might be explained by longer surgery duration, blood-loss and patient selection or maybe a lack of experience concerning proper surgical debridement for one-stage revision. This illustrates the need to establish centers for joint-revision surgery that provide interdisciplinary care and high case numbers to improve perioperative outcomes

Ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC) articulations in total hip arthroplasty (THA) have low wear, but the unique risk of fracture. After revision for CoC fracture, ceramic third bodies can lead to runaway wear of cobalt chrome (CoCr) causing extremely elevated blood cobalt. We present five cases of ceramic liner fractures revised to a CoCr head associated with the rapid development of severe cobalt toxicity. We identified 5 cases of fractured CoC THA treated with revision to CoCr on highly cross-linked polyethylene (HXLPE) – three to conventional bearings and two to modular dual mobility bearings (CoCr acetabular liner, CoCr femoral head, and HXLPE). Mean follow up was 2.5 years after CoCr/HXLPE re-revision. Symptoms of cobalt toxicity occurred at average 9.5 months after revision for ceramic fracture (range 6–12). All patients developed vision and hearing loss, balance difficulties, and peripheral neuropathy. Several had cardiomyopathy, endocrinopathy, and local skin discoloration. Two reported hip pain. Re-revision for cobalt toxicity occurred at an average of 22 months (range 10–36) after revision for ceramic fracture. Average serum cobalt level at re-revision was 991 μg/L (range 734–1302, normal <1 μg/L). All CoCr heads exhibited massive wear with asphericity; deep tissues exhibited prominent metallosis. Treatment consisted of debridement and revision to a ceramic head with HXLPE. Serum cobalt improved to an average of 25 μg/L at final follow up. All patients reported partial improvement in vision and hearing; peripheral neuropathy and balance did not recover. Systemic cobalt toxicity is a rare but devastating complication of ceramic fracture in THA treated with cobalt-alloy bearings. Cobalt alloy bearings should be avoided in this setting. The diagnosis of systemic cobalt toxicity requires a high index of suspicion and was typically delayed following systemic symptoms. Debridement and revision to a ceramic-on-HXLPE leads to improvement but not resolution of cobalt toxicity complications

There remains concern with the use of constrained liners (CL) implanted at the time of acetabular cup revision in revision total hip replacement (rTHA). The aim of this study was to determine the implant survival in rTHA when a CL was implanted at the same time as acetabular cup revision. We reviewed our institutional database to identify all consecutive rTHAs where a CL was implanted simultaneously at the time acetabular cup revision from 2001 to 2021. One-hundred and seventy-four revisions (173 patients) were included in the study. Mean follow-up of 8.7 years (range two – 21.7). The most common indications for rTHA were instability (35%), second-stage periprosthetic joint infection (26.4%), and aseptic loosening (17.2%). Kaplan Meier Analysis was used to determine survival with all-cause re-revision and revision for cup aseptic loosening (fixation failure) as the endpoints. A total of 32 (18.3%) patients underwent re-revision at a mean time of 2.9 years (range 0.1 – 14.1). The most common reasons for re-revision were instability (14), periprosthetic joint infection (seven), and loosening of the femoral component (four). Three (1.7%) required re-revision due to aseptic loosening of the acetabular component (fixation failure) at a mean of two years (0.1 – 5.1). Acetabular component survival free from re-revision due to aseptic loosening was 98.9% (95% CI 97.3 – 100) at five-years and 98.1% (95% CI 95.8 – 100) at 10-years. There were no acetabular component fixation failures in modern highly porous shells. CLs implanted at the time acetabular cup revision in rTHA have a 98.1% 10-year survival free from acetabular cup aseptic loosening (fixation failure). There were no cup fixation failures in modern highly porous shells. Thus, when necessary, implanting a CL during revision of an acetabular component with stable screw fixation is safe with an extremely low risk of cup fixation failure

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

Dislocation following revision THA remains a leading cause of failure. Integrity of the abductor muscles is a major contributor to stability. Large diameter heads (LDH), Dual Mobility (DM) and Constrained Acetabular Liners (CAL) are enhanced stability options but the indication for these choices remains unclear. We assessed an algorithm based on Gluteus Medius (GM) deficiency to determine bearing selection. Default choice with no GM damage was a LDH. GM deficiency with posterior muscle intact received DM and CAL for GM complete deficiency with loss of posterior muscle. Consecutive revision THA series followed to determine dislocation, all-cause re-revision and Oxford Hip Score (OHS). 311 revision THA with mean age 70 years (32–95). At a mean follow-up of 4.8 years overall dislocation rate 4.1% (95%CI 2.4–7.0) and survivorship free of re-revision 94.2% (95%CI 96.3–91.0). Outcomes:. Group 1 - LDH (36 & 40mm) n=164 / 4 dislocations / 7 re-revisions. Group 2 - DM n=73 / 3 dislocations / 4 re-revisions. Group 3 - CAL n=58 / 5 dislocations / 7 re-revisions. Group 4 - Other (28 & 32mm) n=16 / 1 dislocation / no re-revisions. Mean pre-op OHS: 19.6 (2–47) and mean post-op OHS: 33.9 (4–48). Kaplan-Meier analysis at 60 months dislocation-free survival was 96.1% (95% CI: 93.0–97.8). There was no difference between survival distributions comparing bearing choice (p=0.46). Decision making tools to guide selection are limited and in addition soft tissue deficiency has been poorly defined. The posterior vertical fibres of GM have the greatest lateral stabiliser effect on the hip. The algorithm we have used clearly defined indication & implant selection. We believe our outcomes support the use of an enhanced stability bearing selection algorithm

Implant fracture of modular revision stems is a major complication after total hip arthroplasty revision (rTHA). Studies looking at specific modular designs report fracture rates of 0.3% to 0.66% whereas fractures of monobloc designs are only reported anecdotally. It is unclear whether the overall re-revision rate of modular designs is higher and if, whether stem fractures or other revision reasons are responsible for this elevation. All revisions within 5 years after implantation of a revision stems (n. 0. =13,900; n. 5. =2506) were analysed using Cox regression with design (modular: n=17, monobloc: n=27), BMI, Sex and Elixhauser Score as independent variables. One stage and two stage revisions were analysed separately (1-stage: modular n= 7,102; monobloc n= 4,542; 2-stage: 1,551 / 704). The revision volume of the hospitals was also considered (low: <20 revisions, medium: 21–50 revisions, high: >50 revisions). For the 1-stage revisions, the re-revision risk after 4 years was 14,3% [13.2%, 15.5%] for monobloc and 17.4% [16.40%, 18.40%] for modular stems (p< 0.001). Stem fracture was the reason for re-revision in 2.4% of the modular (fracture rate 0.42%) and 0.6% of the monobloc revisions. The difference in re-revision rates between the designs was mainly due to differences in dislocation and stem loosening. For the 2-stage revisions, the revision risks for either design were similar (21.7% [18,5%, 25.4%] vs. 23.0% [20.8%, 25.4%]; p=0.05). Patient characteristics influenced the comparison between the two designs in the 1-stage group but very little in the 2-stage group. Modular revision stem fractures only contribute very minor to re-revision risk. In 2-stage revisions, no difference in overall re-revision rates between designs was observed. This might indicate that the differences observed for 1-stage procedures are due to differences between the patient cohorts, not reflected by the parameters available or surgeon choice

The results of total hip arthroplasty (THA) revisions to correct leg length discrepancy (LLD) are not clear, with only two former limited series (< 25 patients). Therefore, we conducted a retrospective study of THA revisions for LLD to determine: 1) the change in LLD, 2) the function outcomes and whether obtaining equal leg lengths influenced function, 3) the complication and survival rates. This multicenter study included 57 patients: 42 THA revisions for limb shortening and 15 revisions for limb lengthening. LLD was measured on conventional radiographs and EOS. The Oxford-12 and FJS outcome scores were collected and the number of patients achieving the Oxford-12 MCID. The revisions were carried out a mean of 2.8 years after the index THA. The median LLD decreased from 7.5 mm (IQR: [5;12]) to 1 mm (IQR: [0.5;2.5]) at follow-up (p=0.0002). Overall, 55 of 57 patients (96%) had < 5 mm LLD at follow-up and 12 patients (21%) had equal leg lengths. The complication rate was 25%: 12 mechanical complications (8 periprosthetic femoral fractures, 2 stem loosening and 1 cup loosening, 1 dislocation) and 1 periprosthetic infection. The patient satisfaction was high with a median FJS of 79.2/100 and 77% of patients reached the Oxford-12 MCID. Lengthening procedures had significantly worst function than shortening (38% vs 91% of patients achieving the Oxford-12 MCID (p=0.0004)). Survivorship was 85% (95% CI: 77.9 – 92.5) at 2 years and 77% (95% CI: 66.3 – 87.1) at 4.6 years when using re-revision for any reason as the endpoint. When LLD after THA does not respond to conservative management, revision THA should be considered. Although revision THA for LLD improved medium-term functional outcomes with a high patient satisfaction rate, especially for shortening procedures, the complication rate was high, particularly related to periprosthetic femoral fracture

Aims. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and bias evaluation of the current literature to create an overview of risk factors for re-revision following revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA). Methods. A systematic search of MEDLINE and Embase was completed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The studies were required to include a population of index rTKAs. Primary or secondary outcomes had to be re-revision. The association between preoperative factors and the effect on the risk for re-revision was also required to be reported by the studies. Results. The search yielded 4,847 studies, of which 15 were included. A majority of the studies were retrospective cohorts or registry studies. In total, 26 significant risk factors for re-revision were identified. Of these, the following risk factors were consistent across multiple studies: age at the time of index revision, male sex, index revision being partial revision, and index revision due to infection. Modifiable risk factors were opioid use, BMI > 40 kg/m. 2. , and anaemia. History of one-stage revision due to infection was associated with the highest risk of re-revision. Conclusion. Overall, 26 risk factors have been associated with an increased risk of re-revision following rTKA. However, various levels of methodological bias were found in the studies. Future studies should ensure valid comparisons by including patients with identical indications and using clear definitions for accurate assessments. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(8):644–651

The August 2024 Foot & Ankle Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: ESWT versus surgery for fifth metatarsal stress fractures; Minimally invasive surgery versus open fusion for hallux rigidus; Diabetes and infection risk in total ankle arthroplasty; Is proximal medial gastrocnemius recession useful for managing chronic plantar fasciitis?; Fuse the great toe in the young!; Conservative surgery for diabetic foot osteomyelitis; Mental health and outcome following foot and ankle surgery.

Aims. The number of revision arthroplasties being performed in the elderly is expected to rise, including revision for infection. The primary aim of this study was to measure the treatment success rate for octogenarians undergoing revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) compared to a younger cohort. Secondary outcomes were complications and mortality. Methods. Patients undergoing one- or two-stage revision of a primary THA for PJI between January 2008 and January 2021 were identified. Age, sex, BMI, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), McPherson systemic host grade, and causative organism were collated for all patients. PJI was classified as ‘confirmed’, ‘likely’, or ‘unlikely’ according to the 2021 European Bone and Joint Infection Society criteria. Primary outcomes were complications, reoperation, re-revision, and successful treatment of PJI. A total of 37 patients aged 80 years or older and 120 patients aged under 80 years were identified. The octogenarian group had a significantly lower BMI and significantly higher CCI and McPherson systemic host grades compared to the younger cohort. Results. The majority of patients were planned to undergo two-stage revision, although a significantly higher proportion of the octogenarians did not proceed with the second stage (38.7% (n = 12) vs 14.8% (n = 16); p = 0.003). Although there was some evidence of a lower complication rate in the younger cohort, this did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.065). No significant difference in reoperation (21.6% (n = 8) vs 25.0% (n = 30); p = 0.675) or re-revision rate (8.1% (n = 3) vs 16.7% (n = 20); p = 0.288) was identified between the groups. There was no difference in treatment success between groups (octogenarian 89.2% (n = 33) vs control 82.5% (n = 99); p = 0.444). Conclusion. When compared to a younger cohort, octogenarians did not show a significant difference in complication, re-revision, or treatment success rates. However, given they are less likely to be eligible to proceed with second stage revision, consideration should be given to either single-stage revision or use of an articulated spacer to maximize functional outcomes. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(8):802–807

Aims

In metal-on-metal (MoM) hip arthroplasties and resurfacings, mechanically induced corrosion can lead to elevated serum metal ions, a local inflammatory response, and formation of pseudotumours, ultimately requiring revision. The size and diametral clearance of anatomical (ADM) and modular (MDM) dual-mobility polyethylene bearings match those of Birmingham hip MoM components. If the acetabular component is satisfactorily positioned, well integrated into the bone, and has no surface damage, this presents the opportunity for revision with exchange of the metal head for ADM/MDM polyethylene bearings without removal of the acetabular component.

Aims. This study compares the re-revision rate and mortality following septic and aseptic revision hip arthroplasty (rTHA) in registry data, and compares the outcomes to previously reported data. Methods. This is an observational cohort study using data from the German Arthroplasty Registry (EPRD). A total of 17,842 rTHAs were included, and the rates and cumulative incidence of hip re-revision and mortality following septic and aseptic rTHA were analyzed with seven-year follow-up. The Kaplan-Meier estimates were used to determine the re-revision rate and cumulative probability of mortality following rTHA. Results. The re-revision rate within one year after septic rTHA was 30%, and after seven years was 34%. The cumulative mortality within the first year after septic rTHA was 14%, and within seven years was 40%. After multiple previous hip revisions, the re-revision rate rose to over 40% in septic rTHA. The first six months were identified as the most critical period for the re-revision for septic rTHA. Conclusion. The risk re-revision and reinfection after septic rTHA was almost four times higher, as recorded in the ERPD, when compared to previous meta-analysis. We conclude that it is currently not possible to assume the data from single studies and meta-analysis reflects the outcomes in the ‘real world’. Data presented in meta-analyses and from specialist single-centre studies do not reflect the generality of outcomes as recorded in the ERPD. The highest re-revision rates and mortality are seen in the first six months postoperatively. The optimization of perioperative care through the development of a network of high-volume specialist hospitals is likely to lead to improved outcomes for patients undergoing rTHA, especially if associated with infection. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(6):565–572

Introduction. Acetabular component loosening with associated bone loss is a challenge in revision hip arthroplasty. Trabecular Metal (TM) by Zimmer Biomet has been shown to have greater implant survivorship for all-cause acetabular revision in small cohort retrospective studies. Our study aims to review outcomes of acetabular TM implants locally. Method. This is a retrospective observational study using data from Auckland City and North Shore Hospitals from 1st of January 2010 to 31st of December 2020. Primary outcome is implant survivorship (re-revision acetabular surgery for any cause) demonstrated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Secondary outcome is indication for index revision and re-revision surgery. Multivariate analysis used to identify statistically significant factors for re-revision surgery. Results. 225 cases used acetabular TM implants (shells and/or augments) over 10 years. Indications include aseptic loosening (63%), instability (15%) and infection (13%). Of these, 12% (n=28) had further re-revision for infection (54%) and instability (21%). Median time to re-revision was 156 days (range 11 – 2022). No cases of re-revision were due to failure of bony ingrowth or acetabular component loosening. Ethnicity, smoking status, and age were not risk factors for re-revision procedures. Additionally, previous prosthetic joint infection, ethnicity, sex and age were not significant risk factors for re-revision due to infection. Implant survivorship was 80% at 1 year, 71% at 5 years and 64% at 10 years. Discussion. Main indications for re-revision were infection and instability. Demographic factors and co-morbidities did not correlate with increased re-revision risk. Survivorship is poorer compared to cumulative survivorship reported by the New Zealand Joint Registry (NZJR). Explanations are multifactorial and possibly contributed by underestimation of true revision rates by registry data. Conclusions. We need to identify alternate causes for poorer survivorship and review the role of TM implants in acetabular revision within our specified population

Background. Obesity has been linked with increased rates of knee osteoarthritis. Limited information is available on the survival and functional outcome results of rTKR in the obese patients. This registry-based study aimed to identify whether BMI is an independent risk factor for poorer functional outcomes and /or implant survival in rTKA. Methods. New Zealand Joint Registry (NZJR) data of patients who underwent rTKA from 1st January 2010 to January 2023 was performed. Demographics, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), BMI, Operative time, indications for revision and components revised of the patients undergoing rTKA was collected. Oxford knee score (OKS) at 6 months and rates of second revision (re- revision) were stratified based on standardised BMI categories. Results. Of the 2687 revisions, functional outcome scores were available for 1261 patients. Oxford knee scores following rTKA are significantly inferior in higher BMI patients (36.5 vs 31.5 p<0.001). This held true when adjusted for age (35.7 vs 30.9 p<0.001). Tibial component loosening was a more common indication for revision in patients with BMI >40 (31.1% vs 21% for BMI <25), whereas periprosthetic femoral fracture was significantly more commonly seen in patients with BMI <25. Re-revision rates displayed no significant differences between any pairs of BMI groups (2.18/100 component years) and adjusting for age and sex did not alter this (p= 0.462). Indications for re-revision were also not different between BMI categories. Over 50% of the rTKA patients were obese. Significantly more obese patients were ASA grade 3,4 and more were <75 years. Operative time was longer in the obese patients (p<0.001). Conclusions. Although overall re-revision rates are similar between all BMI categories, the functional outcomes favour those with lower BMI. Patients with higher BMI are younger, more comorbid and carry potentially higher perioperative risks. The registry data provides valuable information when providing counsel to patients undergoing rTKA and lends further support to optimising patients prior to pTKA

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

Aims

Uncemented implants are now commonly used at reimplantation of a two-stage revision total hip arthoplasty (THA) following periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). However, there is a paucity of data on the performance of the most commonly used uncemented femoral implants – modular fluted tapered (MFT) femoral components – in this setting. This study evaluated implant survival, radiological results, and clinical outcomes in a large cohort of reimplantation THAs using MFT components.