Aims

The aim of this audit was to assess and improve the completeness and accuracy of the National Joint Registry (NJR) dataset for arthroplasty of the elbow.

Hip fractures pose a major global health challenge, leading to high rates of morbidity and mortality, particularly among the elderly. With an ageing population, the incidence of these injuries is rising, exerting significant pressure on healthcare systems worldwide. Despite substantial research aimed at establishing best practice, several key areas remain the subject of ongoing debate. This article examines the latest evidence on the place of arthroplasty in the surgical treatment of hip fractures, with a particular focus on the choice of implant, the use of cemented versus uncemented fixation, and advances in perioperative care.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(12):1372–1376.

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) represents a complex challenge in orthopaedic surgery associated with substantial morbidity and healthcare expenditures. The debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) protocol is a viable treatment, offering several advantages over exchange arthroplasty. With the evolution of treatment strategies, considerable efforts have been directed towards enhancing the efficacy of DAIR, including the development of a phased debridement protocol for acute PJI management. This article provides an in-depth analysis of DAIR, presenting the outcomes of single-stage, two-stage, and repeated DAIR procedures. It delves into the challenges faced, including patient heterogeneity, pathogen identification, variability in surgical techniques, and antibiotics selection. Moreover, critical factors that influence the decision-making process between single- and two-stage DAIR protocols are addressed, including team composition, timing of the intervention, antibiotic regimens, and both anatomical and implant-related considerations. By providing a comprehensive overview of DAIR protocols and their clinical implications, this annotation aims to elucidate the advancements, challenges, and potential future directions in the application of DAIR for PJI management. It is intended to equip clinicians with the insights required to effectively navigate the complexities of implementing DAIR strategies, thereby facilitating informed decision-making for optimizing patient outcomes.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(12):1377–1384.

Aims

Highly cross-linked polyethylene (HXLPE) greatly reduces wear in total hip arthroplasty, compared to conventional polyethylene (CPE). Cross-linking is commonly achieved by irradiation. This study aimed to compare the degree of cross-linking and in vitro wear rates across a cohort of retrieved and unused polyethylene cups/liners from various brands.

Aim. Two types of national registers surveil infections after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) in Norway: The National surveillance system for surgical site infections (NOIS) that surveil all primary THAs 30 days postoperatively for surgical site infections (SSI), and the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register (NAR) that follow all THAs until any surgical reoperation/revision or the death of the patient. Since these registers report on the same THAs we assessed correspondence between and time trends for the two registers in period 2013 to 2022. All reported THAs were included. Method. The THAs were matched on a group level according to sex, age and ASA-class. In addition to descriptive statistics, adjusted Cox regression analyses were performed with adjustment for sex, age group (<45, 45-54, 55-64, 65-74, 75-84, >85 years) and ASA-class (1, 2, 3, 4 and missing). Changes in annual incidence and adjusted hazard rate (aHR) was calculated. Endpoints in the NOIS were 30-Days SSI and 30-Days reoperation for SSI. Endpoints in the NAR were 30-Days and 1-Year reoperation for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Results. The NOIS had registered 87,923 THAs with 1,393 (1.58%) SSIs and 765 (0.87%) reoperations for SSI within 30 postoperatively. The NAR had registered 91,194 THAs with 725 (0.80%) reoperations for infection after 30 days, and 1,019 (1.21%) reoperations for infections after one year. The distribution of sex, age and ASA-class was near identical in the two registers. There was a mean annual reduction in risk of both SSI (aHR 0.92 (95% CI 0.90-0.93)) and reoperation for SSI (0.95(0.92-0.97)) and PJI (30-Days: 0.96 (0.94-0.99), 1-Year: 0.95-0.99)) over the period 2013-2022. Conclusions. The NOIS and the NAR have excellent completeness and the registrations in both registers may be considered representative for the Norwegian population. Not all SSI are reoperated. The incidence and risk of SSI (NOIS) and reoperation for PJI (NAR) is declining and may reflect a true reduction in incidence of PJI after primary THA

Aim. The current recommendation in Norway is to use four doses of a first-generation cephalosporin (cefazolin or cephalotin) as systemic antibiotic prophylaxis (SAP) the day of surgery in primary joint arthroplasty. Due to shortage of supply, scientific development, changed courses of treatment and improved antibiotic stewardship, this recommendation has been disputed. We therefore wanted to assess if one dose of SAP was non-inferior to four doses in preventing periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in primary joint arthroplasty. Method. We included patients with primary hip- and knee arthroplasties from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register and the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register for the period 2005-2023. We included the most used SAPs (cephalotin, cefazolin, cefuroxime, cloxacillin and clindamycin), administered as the only SAP in 1-4 doses, starting preoperatively. Risk of revision (Hazard rate ratio; HRR) for PJI was estimated by Cox regression analyses with adjustment for sex, age, ASA class, duration of surgery, reason for- and type of arthroplasty, and year of primary arthroplasty. The outcome was 1-year reoperation or revision for PJI. Non-inferiority margins were calculated for 1, 2 and 3 doses versus reference of 4 doses of SAP at the day of surgery, against a predetermined limit of 15% increased risk of PJI. Results. In total 274,188 primary arthroplasties (total hip 133,985, hemi hip 51,442, and total knee 88,761) were included. Of these primary arthroplasties, 2,996 (1.1%) had subsequent revisions for PJI during the first postoperative year. One dose of SAP was given in 9,603 arthroplasties, two doses in 10,068, three doses in 18,351, and four doses in 236,166 arthroplasties. With the recommended four doses as reference, the HRR (95% CI) for 1-year revision for infection was 0.9 (0.7-1.1) for one dose, 1.0 (0.8-1.2) for two doses, and 0.9 (0.8-1.1) for three doses. The corresponding adjusted 1-year revision incidences for PJI was 0.9 (0.7-1.1), 1.0 (0.8-1.2), 0.9 (0. 8-1.1) and 1.0 (1.0-1.1) for one, two, three and four doses respectively, and less than four doses was found to be non-inferior. Conclusions. One preoperative dose of SAP in primary joint arthroplasty surgery seems to be non-inferior to the current recommendation of four doses of a first-generation cephalosporin as PJI-prophylaxis. This finding may simplify the course of treatment for arthroplasty patients, save costs, and improve antibiotic stewardship

Aim. There is controversy regarding the use of Antibiotic-loaded cement (ALBC) as compared to non-antibiotic-loaded cement (NALBC) to reduce the overall infection rate without affecting implant survival or adding additional risks on fixation for primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Method. To conduct the analysis, we utilized the Catalan Arthroplasty Registry (RACat) for the TKAs implanted between 2005 and 2017. The primary variable recorded was the use of cement with or without antibiotics. Other recorded variables included were age, sex, diabetes mellitus, obesity, Charlson index and type of hospital. We analyzed the effect of ALBC vs. NALBC in reducing the risk of prosthetic infection at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months as well as prosthetic survival due to mechanical causes at 1, 5, and 10 years. Univariate and multivariable analyses of risk factors were conducted. Thereby, an interactive predictive model that determines the risk of prosthetic infection based on each patient's characteristics was created. Results. A total of 28,287 TKAs from the RACat were analyzed. In that total, there were 19,788 NALBC and 8,499 ALBC. The infection rates for TKAs with NALBC vs. those with ALBC at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months were respectively: 1.69% vs. 1.39% (p=0.132); 1.81% vs. 1.56% (p=0.147); 2.14% vs. 1.73% (p=0.030); 2.51% vs. 1.86% (p=0.001). A statistically significant reduction in periprosthetic infection rate was observed in the ALBC group at 12 and 24 months. No differences were observed between the two groups in terms of prosthetic mechanical survival. Being younger, male and having had previous knee surgery or having a high comorbidity index all led to a higher risk of prosthetic revision due to infection. Conclusions. The use of ALBC as a fixation method for TKA leads to a reduction in the risk of prosthetic infection without altering the mechanical survival of the implant. The creation of a predictive model helps determine the individualized risk of prosthetic infection based on the patient's characteristics

Background and purpose. Previous publications have reported an increased but levelling out risk of revision for infection after total hip arthroplasty (THA) in Norway. We assessed the changes in risk of major (cup and/or stem, 1- or 2-stage) and minor revisions (debridement, exchange of modular parts, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR)) for infection after primary THAs reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register (NAR) over the period 2005-2022. Patients and methods. Primary THAs reported to the NAR from 2005 to 2022 were included. Time was stratified into time periods (2005-2009, 2010-2018, 2019-2022) based on a previous publication. Cox regression analyses, adjusted for sex, age and ASA-classification, with the first revision for infection were performed. Results. 140,338 primary THAs met the inclusion criteria. 1.3% (1,785) were revised for infection during the study period. 0.5% (638) had major revisions, whereas 0.8% (1,147) had DAIRs for infection. The risk of revision for infection was 1.2 (95%CI 1.1-1.4) for 2010-2018 and 1.0 (0.8-1.1) for 2019-2022 compared to 2005-2009. Compared to 2010-2018, the risk of revision for infection was 0.8 (0.7-0.9) for 2019-2022. The risk of DAIR for infection was 1.5 (1.3-1.9) for 2010-2018 and 1.2 (1.0-1.4) for 2019-2022 compared to 2005-2009. Compared to 2010-2018, the risk of DAIR for infection was 0.8 (0.7-0.9) for 2019-2022. The risk of major revision for infection was 0.8 (0.7-1.0) for 2010-2018 and 0.8 (0.6-1.0) for 2019-2022 compared to 2005-2009. Interpretation. The overall risk of revision for infection after THA, in Norway, has decreased in the period 2019-2022. The risk for DAIR initially increased in the period 2005-2009, levelled out 2010-2018 before starting to decrease in 2019-2022. The risk of major revision for infection was reduced in the period 2005-2009 before levelling out. This shows changes in revision strategies, but may also reflect a true decrease in periprosthetic joint infection

Aims

This multicentre retrospective observational study’s aims were to investigate whether there are differences in the occurrence of radiolucent lines (RLLs) following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) between the conventional Attune baseplate and its successor, the novel Attune S+, independent from other potentially influencing factors; and whether tibial baseplate design and presence of RLLs are associated with differing risk of revision.

Aims

Limited implant survival due to aseptic cup loosening is most commonly responsible for revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). Advances in implant designs and materials have been crucial in addressing those challenges. Vitamin E-infused highly cross-linked polyethylene (VEPE) promises strong wear resistance, high oxidative stability, and superior mechanical strength. Although VEPE monoblock cups have shown good mid-term performance and excellent wear patterns, long-term results remain unclear. This study evaluated migration and wear patterns and clinical and radiological outcomes at a minimum of ten years’ follow-up.

Controversy persists over whether cemented or uncemented fixation is more effective in reducing revision and mortality risks following primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). Despite a shift towards uncemented THA in Europe, Australia, and the US, no consensus exists on superior outcomes. This ambiguity in evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies necessitates advanced research methodologies to derive more definitive conclusions. This study investigates the causal impact of THA fixation type on 2-year and 5-year revision rates, along with 90-day mortality, utilizing a regression discontinuity (RD) design in scenarios where fixation choice is guided by patient age. Employing data from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register, we conducted a cohort study on primary THAs for osteoarthritis from 2007 to 2019. A “fuzzy” RD design was executed to compute the Local Average Treatment Effect for subjects around the age-based selection threshold for fixation type. The main outcome of interest was the revision rate at 2 years post-operation. Analysis for the 2-year revision endpoint, covering any cause, included 2,344 females and 1,671 males across 5 hospitals each, with no significant variation in revision rates observed. For the 5-year mark, 1,058 females in 3 hospitals and 214 males in 1 hospital were examined, similarly showing no significant differences. Mortality within 90 days post-operation was also investigated in 5 female and 7 male cohorts, with 2,180 and 2,145 surgeries respectively, yielding no substantial disparities. In conclusion, the RD analysis revealed no notable differences in revision rates at 2 and 5 years or in early mortality based on the fixation method used in THA. These outcomes suggest that the age-based preference for THA fixation may not influence the revision or mortality risk, underscoring the value of RD design in deriving causal insights from observational data

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

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.

The August 2024 Hip & Pelvis Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Understanding perceived leg length discrepancy post-total hip arthroplasty: the role of pelvic obliquity; Influence of femoral stem design on revision rates in total hip arthroplasty; Outcomes of arthroscopic labral treatment of femoroacetabular impingement in adolescents; Characteristics and quality of online searches for direct anterior versus posterior approach for total hip arthroplasty; Rapid return to braking after anterior and posterior approach total hip arthroplasty; How much protection does a collar provide?; Timing matters: reducing infection risk in total hip arthroplasty with corticosteroid injection intervals; Identifying pain recovery patterns in total hip arthroplasty using PROMIS data.

Aims

Hip arthroscopy has gained prominence as a primary surgical intervention for symptomatic femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). This study aimed to identify radiological features, and their combinations, that predict the outcome of hip arthroscopy for FAI.

Aims. This study aimed to evaluate the BioFire Joint Infection (JI) Panel in cases of hip and knee periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) where conventional microbiology is unclear, and to assess its role as a complementary intraoperative diagnostic tool. Methods. Five groups representing common microbiological scenarios in hip and knee revision arthroplasty were selected from our arthroplasty registry, prospectively maintained PJI databases, and biobank: 1) unexpected-negative cultures (UNCs), 2) unexpected-positive cultures (UPCs), 3) single-positive intraoperative cultures (SPCs), and 4) clearly septic and 5) aseptic cases. In total, 268 archived synovial fluid samples from 195 patients who underwent acute/chronic revision total hip or knee arthroplasty were included. Cases were classified according to the International Consensus Meeting 2018 criteria. JI panel evaluation of synovial fluid was performed, and the results were compared with cultures. Results. The JI panel detected microorganisms in 7/48 (14.5%) and 15/67 (22.4%) cases related to UNCs and SPCs, respectively, but not in cases of UPCs. The correlation between JI panel detection and infection classification criteria for early/late acute and chronic PJI was 46.6%, 73%, and 40%, respectively. Overall, the JI panel identified 12.6% additional microorganisms and three new species. The JI panel pathogen identification showed a sensitivity and specificity of 41.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) 33.7 to 49.5) and 91.1% (95% CI 84.7 to 94.9), respectively. In total, 19/195 (9.7%) could have been managed differently and more accurately upon JI panel evaluation. Conclusion. Despite its microbial limitation, JI panel demonstrated clinical usefulness by complementing the traditional methods based on multiple cultures, particularly in PJI with unclear microbiological results. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2024;13(7):353–361

The June 2024 Hip & Pelvis Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Machine learning did not outperform conventional competing risk modelling to predict revision arthroplasty; Unravelling the risks: incidence and reoperation rates for femoral fractures post-total hip arthroplasty; Spinal versus general anaesthesia for hip arthroscopy: a COVID-19 pandemic- and opioid epidemic-driven study; Development and validation of a deep-learning model to predict total hip arthroplasty on radiographs; Ambulatory centres lead in same-day hip and knee arthroplasty success; Exploring the impact of smokeless tobacco on total hip arthroplasty outcomes: a deeper dive into postoperative complications.

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