Aims. The aim of this study was to describe the pattern of revision indications for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and any change to this pattern for UKA patients over the last 20 years, and to investigate potential associations to changes in surgical practice over time. Methods. All primary knee arthroplasty surgeries performed due to primary osteoarthritis and their revisions reported to the Danish Knee Arthroplasty Register from 1997 to 2017 were included. Complex surgeries were excluded. The data was linked to the National Patient Register and the Civil Registration System for comorbidity, mortality, and emigration status. TKAs were propensity score matched 4:1 to UKAs. Revision risks were compared using competing risk Cox proportional hazard regression with a shared γ frailty component. Results. Aseptic loosening (loosening) was the most common revision indication for both UKA (26.7%) and TKA (29.5%). Pain and disease progression accounted for 54.6% of the remaining UKA revisions. Infections and instability accounted for 56.1% of the remaining TKA revision. The incidence of revision due to loosening or pain decreased over the last decade, being the second and third least common indications in 2017. There was a decrease associated with fixation method for pain (hazard ratio (HR) 0.40; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 0.94) and loosening (HR 0.29; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.81) for cementless compared to cemented, and units UKA usage for pain (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.91), and loosening (HR 0.51; 95% CI 0.37 to 0.70) for high usage. Conclusion. The overall revision patterns for UKA and TKA for the last 20 years are comparable to previous published patterns. We found large changes to UKA revision patterns in the last decade, and with the current surgical practice, revision due to pain or loosening are significantly less likely. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(12):923–931

In this study, we evaluated patient-reported outcomes, the rate of revision and the indications for revision following resurfacing hemiarthroplasty of the shoulder in patients with osteoarthritis. All patients with osteoarthritis who underwent primary resurfacing hemiarthroplasty and reported to the Danish Shoulder Arthroplasty Registry (DSR), between January 2006 and December 2010 were included. There were 772 patients (837 arthroplasties) in the study. The Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder (WOOS) index was used to evaluate patient-reported outcome 12 months (10 to 14) post-operatively. The rates of revision were calculated from the revisions reported to the DSR up to December 2011 and by checking deaths with the Danish National Register of Persons. A complete questionnaire was returned by 688 patients (82.2%). The mean WOOS was 67 (0 to 100). A total of 63 hemiarthroplasties (7.5%) required revision; the cumulative five-year rate of revision was 9.9%. Patients aged < 55 years had a statistically significant inferior WOOS score, which exceeded the minimal clinically important difference, compared with older patients (mean difference 14.2 (8.8; 95% CI 19.6; p < 0.001), but with no increased risk of revision. There was no significant difference in the mean WOOS or the risk of revision between designs of resurfacing hemiarthroplasty. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:519–25

Revision of a cemented hemiarthroplasty of the hip may be a hazardous procedure with high rates of intra-operative complications. Removing well-fixed cement is time consuming and risks damaging already weak bone or perforating the femoral shaft. The cement-in-cement method avoids removal of intact cement and has shown good results when used for revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). The use of this technique for the revision of a hemiarthroplasty to THA has not been previously reported. A total of 28 consecutive hemiarthroplasties (in 28 patients) were revised to a THA using an Exeter stem and the cement-in-cement technique. There were four men and 24 women; their mean age was 80 years (35 to 93). Clinical and radiographic data, as well as operative notes, were collected prospectively and no patient was lost to follow-up. Four patients died within two years of surgery. The mean follow up of the remainder was 70 months (25 to 124). Intra-operatively there was one proximal perforation, one crack of the femoral calcar and one acetabular fracture. No femoral components have required subsequent revision for aseptic loosening or are radiologically loose. . Four patients with late complications (14%) have since undergone surgery (two for a peri-prosthetic fracture, and one each for deep infection and recurrent dislocation) resulting in an overall major rate of complication of 35.7%. The cement-in-cement technique provides reliable femoral fixation in this elderly population and may reduce operating time and rates of complication. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1623–7

If a surgeon is faced with altered lesser trochanter anatomy when revising the femoral component in revision total hip replacement, a peri-prosthetic fracture, or Paprosky type IIIb or type IV femoral bone loss, a modular tapered stem offers the advantages of accurately controlling femoral version and length. The splines of the taper allow rotational control, and improve the fit in femoral canals with diaphyseal bone loss. In general, two centimetres of diaphyseal contact is all that is needed to gain stability with modular tapered stems. By allowing the proximal body trial to rotate on a well-fixed distal segment during trial reduction, appropriate anteversion can be obtained in order to improve intra-operative stability, and decrease the dislocation risk. However, modular stems should not be used for all femoral revisions, as implant fracture and corrosion at modular junctions can still occur. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B, Supple A:95–7

Aims. The Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) was introduced in 1997 to address the needs of young active patients using a historically proven large-diameter metal-on-metal (MoM) bearing. A single designer surgeon’s consecutive series of 130 patients (144 hips) was previously reported at five and ten years, reporting three and ten failures, respectively. The aim of this study was to extend the follow-up of this original cohort at 25 years. Methods. The study extends the reporting on the first consecutive 144 resurfacing procedures in 130 patients for all indications. All operations were undertaken between August 1997 and May 1998. The mean age at operation was 52.1 years (SD 9.93; 17 to 76), and included 37 female patients (28.5%). Failure was defined as revision of either component for any reason. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed. Routine follow-up with serum metal ion levels, radiographs, and Oxford Hip Scores (OHSs) was undertaken. Results. Overall implant survival was 83.50% (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 0.90) at 25 years, and the number at risk was 79. Survival in male patients at 25 years was 89.5% (95% CI 0.83 to 0.96) compared to 66.9% for female patients (95% CI 0.51 to 0.83). Ten additional failures occurred in the period of ten to 25 years. These involved an adverse reaction to metal debris in four patients, a periprosthetic femoral neck fracture affecting five patients, and aseptic loosening in one patient. The median chromium levels were 49.50 nmol/l (interquartile range (IQR) 34 to 70), and the median cobalt serum levels were 42 nmol/l (IQR 24.50 to 71.25). The median OHS at last follow-up was 35 (IQR 10 to 48). During the 25-year study period, 29 patients died. Patient survival at 25 years was 75.10% (95% CI 0.67 to 0.83). Conclusion. This study demonstrates that MoM hip resurfacing using the BHR provides a durable alternative to total hip arthroplasty (THA), particularly in younger male patients with osteoarthritis wishing to maintain a high level of function. These results compare favourably to the best results for THAs. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(6):540–547

Total hip arthroplasty has been constantly evolving with technological improvements to achieve the best survival rates. Although the new implants are under closer surveillance through processes such as Beyond Compliance, orthopaedic surgeons generally tend to look out for the latest implants with good short-term results and hope for better long-term results for these. We questioned whether such an assumption or bias is valid. We analysed the data of Kaplan-Meier estimates of cumulative revisions of primary hip replacement by fixation, stem/cup brand and bearing combinations from the NJR 19th Annual Report published in September 2022. We performed a univariate linear regression analysis to predict the 10- and 15-year revision rates for these different hip implant combinations from the 3- and 5-year revision rates. Thirty-seven implant combinations had their 15-year revision rates reported and 67 had the 10-year revision rates. The correlation co-efficients were 0.43 and 0.58 for the 3-year and 5-year revision rates against 15-year revision rates. Only 17% of the variance in 15-year revision rates could be predicted by a linear regression model from the 3-year revision rate and 32% from the 5-year revision rate. Corresponding values for the 10-year revision rates were 46% and 67%. 95% prediction intervals for the 15-year revision rate were +/− 3.1% from the 3-year revision rate and +/− 2.8% from the 5-year revision rate. Corresponding values for the 10-year revision rates were +/− 1.3% and +/− 1%. 19 of 37 implant combinations showed 15-year revision rate of more than 4%. Average 3-year and 5-year revision rates for this cohort was 1.0% and 1.42% compared to 1.4% and 1.9% for the rest and the difference was statistically significant. Although average early revision rates showed small but significant difference between the groups with lower and higher 15-year revision rates, the prediction intervals for 15-year revision rates for individual hips based on their 3-year and 5-year revision rates are very wide. Three- and 5-year revision rates for primary total hip replacements are poor predictors of 15-year revision rates

Aims. The burden of revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) continues to grow. The surgery is complex and associated with significant costs. Regional rTHA networks have been proposed to improve outcomes and to reduce re-revisions, and therefore costs. The aim of this study was to accurately quantify the cost and reimbursement for a rTHA service, and to assess the financial impact of case complexity at a tertiary referral centre within the NHS. Methods. A retrospective analysis of all revision hip procedures was performed at this centre over two consecutive financial years (2018 to 2020). Cases were classified according to the Revision Hip Complexity Classification (RHCC) and whether they were infected or non-infected. Patients with an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade ≥ III or BMI ≥ 40 kg/m. 2. are considered “high risk” by the RHCC. Costs were calculated using the Patient Level Information and Costing System (PLICS), and remuneration based on Healthcare Resource Groups (HRG) data. The primary outcome was the financial difference between tariff and cost per patient episode. Results. In all, 199 revision episodes were identified in 168 patients: 25 (13%) least complex revisions (H1); 110 (55%) complex revisions (H2); and 64 (32%) most complex revisions (H3). Of the 199, 76 cases (38%) were due to infection, and 78 patients (39%) were “high risk”. Median length of stay increased significantly with case complexity from four days to six to eight days (p = 0.006) and for revisions performed for infection (9 days vs 5 days; p < 0.001). Cost per episode increased significantly between complexity groups (p < 0.001) and for infected revisions (p < 0.001). All groups demonstrated a mean deficit but this significantly increased with revision complexity (£97, £1,050, and £2,887 per case; p = 0.006) and for infected failure (£2,629 vs £635; p = 0.032). The total deficit to the NHS Trust over two years was £512,202. Conclusion. Current NHS reimbursement for rTHA is inadequate and should be more closely aligned to complexity. An increase in the most complex rTHAs at major revision centres will likely place a greater financial burden on these units. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(8):559–566

Aims. The outcome of repeat septic revision after a failed one-stage exchange for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remains unknown. The aim of this study was to report the infection-free and all-cause revision-free survival of repeat septic revision after a failed one-stage exchange, and to determine whether the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) stage is associated with subsequent infection-related failure. Methods. We retrospectively reviewed all repeat septic revision TKAs which were undertaken after a failed one-stage exchange between 2004 and 2017. A total of 33 repeat septic revisions (29 one-stage and four two-stage) met the inclusion criteria. The mean follow-up from repeat septic revision was 68.2 months (8.0 months to 16.1 years). The proportion of patients who had a subsequent infection-related failure and all-cause revision was reported and Kaplan-Meier survival for these endpoints was determined. Patients were categorized according to the MSIS staging system, and the association with subsequent infection was analyzed. Results. At the most recent follow-up, 17 repeat septic revisions (52%) had a subsequent infection-related failure and the five-year infection-free survival was 59% (95% confidence interval (CI) 39 to 74). A total of 19 underwent a subsequent all-cause revision (58%) and the five-year all-cause revision-free survival was 47% (95% CI 28 to 64). The most common indication for the first subsequent aseptic revision was loosening. The MSIS stage of the host status (p = 0.663) and limb status (p = 1.000) were not significantly associated with subsequent infection-related failure. Conclusion. Repeat septic revision after a failed one-stage exchange TKA for PJI is associated with a high rate of subsequent infection-related failure and all-cause revision. Patients should be counselled appropriately to manage expectations. The host and limb status according to the MSIS staging system were not associated with subsequent infection-related failure. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(3):386–393

Aims. The purpose of this study is to examine six types of bearing surfaces implanted at a single institution over three decades to determine whether the reasons for revision vary among the groups and how long it takes to identify differences in survival. Methods. We considered six cohorts that included a total of 1,707 primary hips done between 1982 and 2010. These included 223 conventional polyethylene sterilized with γ irradiation in air (CPE-GA), 114 conventional polyethylene sterilized with gas plasma (CPE-GP), 116 crosslinked polyethylene (XLPE), 1,083 metal-on-metal (MOM), 90 ceramic-on-ceramic (COC), and 81 surface arthroplasties (SAs). With the exception of the COC, all other groups used cobalt-chromium (CoCr) femoral heads. The mean follow-up was 10 (0.008 to 35) years. Descriptive statistics with revisions per 100 component years (re/100 yr) and survival analysis with revision for any reason as the endpoint were used to compare bearing surfaces. Results. XLPE liners demonstrated a lower cumulative incidence of revision at 15 years compared to the CPE-GA and CPE-GP groups owing to the absence of wear-related revisions (4% for XLPE vs 18%, p = 0.02, and 15%, p = 0.003, respectively). Revisions for adverse local tissue reactions occurred exclusively among the MOM (0.8 re/100 year) and SA groups (0.1 re/100 year). The revision rate for instability was lower among hips with 36 mm and larger head sizes compared to smaller head sizes (0.2% vs 2%, p < 0.001). Conclusion. The introduction of XLPE has eliminated wear-related revisions through 15-year follow-up compared to CPE-GP and CPE-GA. Dislocation incidence has been reduced with the introduction of larger diameter heads but remains a persistent concern. The potential for adverse local tissue reactions with MOM requires continued follow-up. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(7 Supple B):105–111

Abstract. Introduction. Anxiety and depression are risk factors for poor outcome following knee replacement surgery. The aim of this study was to investigate the prevalence of anxiety and depression before and after primary (pKR) and revision knee replacement (rKR). Methodology. Retrospective cohort study. 315,720 pKR and 12,727 rKR recruited from the NHS Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) programme from 2013–2021. Anxiety and depression were defined using: (i) Survey question: “Have you been told by a doctor that you have depression? Yes/No”; (ii) EQ-5D anxiety/depression domain. Rates of EQ-5D anxiety/depression were investigated at baseline and at 6-months following surgery. The prevalence of depression was investigated by patient age and gender. Results. Overall, 28,434/315,720 (9.0%) pKR and 1,536/12,727 (12.0%) rKR reported pre-operative depression. For all age groups, depression was more common in female than male patients. Prevalence of depression reduced with age (<60 years: 16.8% pKR, 22.7% rKR; 80+ years: 5.3% pKR, 5.2% rKR). Depression was most prevalent in female patients, under 60 years undergoing rKR (25.6%). Pre-operation, 109,000/303,998 (35.9%) pKR and 5,433/12,216 rKR (44.5%) reported moderate or extreme EQ-5D anxiety/depression. Post-operation, 65,351/308,914 (21.2%) pKR and 4,176/12,409 rKR (33.7%) reported moderate or extreme EQ-5D anxiety/depression. Conclusion. Anxiety and depression were prevalent in patients undergoing knee replacement surgery. Patients undergoing revision procedures, female patients and younger patients had the highest rates of depression. Large improvements in anxiety/depression were observed at early follow-up after pKR and rKR

Aims. The number of revision total ankle arthroplasties (TAAs) which are undertaken is increasing. Few studies have reported the survival after this procedure. The primary aim of this study was to analyze the survival of revision ankle arthroplasties using large datasets. Secondary aims were to summarize the demographics of the patients, the indications for revision TAA, further operations, and predictors of survival. Methods. The study combined data from the National Joint Registry and NHS Digital to report the survival of revision TAA. We have previously reported the failure rates and risk factors for failure after TAA, and the outcome of fusion after a failed TAA, using the same methodology. Survival was assessed using life tables and Kaplan Meier graphs. Cox proportional hazards regression models were fitted to compare failure rates. Results. A total of 228 patients underwent revision TAA. The mean follow-up was 2.6 years (SD 2.0). The mean time between the initial procedure and revision was 2.3 years (SD 1.8). The most commonly used implant was the Inbone which was used in 81 patients. A total of 29 (12.7%) failed; nine (3.9%) patients underwent a further revision, 19 (8.3%) underwent a fusion, and one (0.4%) had an amputation. The rate of survival was 95.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) 91.6 to 97.5) at one year, 87.7% (95% CI 81.9 to 91.7; n = 124) at three years and 77.5% (95% CI 66.9 to 85.0; n = 57) at five years. Revision-specific implants had a better survival than when primary implants were used at revision. A total of 50 patients (21.9%) had further surgery; 19 (8.3%) underwent reoperation in the first 12 months. Cox regression models were prepared. In crude analysis the only significant risk factors for failure were the use of cement (hazard ratio (HR) 3.02 (95% CI 1.13 to 8.09)) and the time since the primary procedure (HR 0.67 (95% CI 0.47 to 0.97)). No risk factors for failure were identified in multivariable Cox regression modelling. Conclusion. Revision TAAs have good medium term survival and low rates of further surgery. New modular revision implants appear to have improved the survival compared with the use of traditional primary implants at revision. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(11):1184–1188

Different techniques have been described to address massive bone loss of the acetabulum in revision hip surgery. aMace has gained popularity as it provides customization aiming to restore hip centre and provide good initial stability in cases of large non-contained defects. It takes into account quality of host bone. Its porous defect filling scaffold provides an excellent surface for osteointegration. Our aim was to assess the short and mid-term outcomes of patients who underwent revision surgery using aMace system. Ethical approval was obtained. A retrospective study included all patients who had aMace between June 2013 and October 2022 allowing for a minimum of 12-months follow-up. Patients’ demographics, indication, bone-loss severity, reconstruction details, re-operation, complications, mortality, pain and function were assessed. 52 cases were performed by 13 surgeons with median 51 months follow-up. Median age was 72.7 years. 86.5% were female. Average BMI was 25.3. Average ASA grade was 3. 65% were classified as Paprosky IIIB and 32% were IIIA. 73% were found to have poor bone quality on CT. Main indication for aMace was massive bone loss/discontinuity secondary to aseptic loosening in 88.5%. 77% underwent single-stage revision. 53.8% had 2 or more previous revisions. 71% underwent stem revision in the same setting. 77% received a dual mobility bearing. Re-operation rate was 5.7% for instability and femoral PPF. LLD was reported in 9.6%. Permanent Sciatic nerve palsy occurred in 3.8% of the cases. 30-days mortality was 1.9%. Statistically significant post-op improvements in pain and mobility were reported (p<0.001). None of the acetabular components have been revised. Our study shows satisfactory surgical outcomes with a relatively low complication rate and significant pain and mobility improvements in the early to mid-term stages. We recommend these costly cases to be done in highly specialist centres adopting MDT approach

Aims. Removal of infected components and culture-directed antibiotics are important for the successful treatment of chronic periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). However, as many as 27% of chronic PJI patients yield negative culture results. Although culture negativity has been thought of as a contraindication to one-stage revision, data supporting this assertion are limited. The aim of our study was to report on the clinical outcomes for one-stage and two-stage exchange arthroplasty performed in patients with chronic culture-negative PJI. Methods. A total of 105 consecutive patients who underwent revision arthroplasty for chronic culture-negative PJI were retrospectively evaluated. One-stage revision arthroplasty was performed in 30 patients, while 75 patients underwent two-stage exchange, with a minimum of one year's follow-up. Reinfection, re-revision for septic and aseptic reasons, amputation, readmission, mortality, and length of stay were compared between the two treatment strategies. Results. The patient demographic characteristics did not differ significantly between the groups. At a mean follow-up of 4.2 years, the treatment failure for reinfection for one-stage and two-stage revision was five (16.7%) and 15 patients (20.0%) (p = 0.691), and for septic re-revision was four (13.3%) and 11 patients (14.7%) (p = 0.863), respectively. No significant differences were observed between one-stage and two-stage revision for 30- 60- and 90-day readmissions (10.0% vs 8.0%; p = 0.714; 16.7% vs 9.3%; p = 0.325; and 26.7% vs 10.7%; p = 0.074), one-year mortality (3.3% vs 4.0%; p > 0.999), and amputation (3.3% vs 1.3%; p = 0.496). Conclusion. In this non-randomized study, one-stage revision arthroplasty demonstrated similar outcomes including reinfection, re-revision, and readmission rates for the treatment of chronic culture-negative PJI after TKA and THA compared to two-stage revision. This suggests culture negativity may not be a contraindication to one-stage revision arthroplasty for chronic culture-negative PJI in selected patients. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(3):515–521

Aims. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has a higher risk of revision than total knee arthroplasty (TKA), particularly for younger patients. The outcome of knee arthroplasty is typically defined as implant survival or revision incidence after a defined number of years. This can be difficult for patients to conceptualize. We aimed to calculate the ‘lifetime risk’ of revision for UKA as a more meaningful estimate of risk projection over a patient’s remaining lifetime, and to compare this to TKA. Methods. Incidence of revision and mortality for all primary UKAs performed from 1999 to 2019 (n = 13,481) was obtained from the New Zealand Joint Registry (NZJR). Lifetime risk of revision was calculated for patients and stratified by age, sex, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade. Results. The lifetime risk of revision was highest in the youngest age group (46 to 50 years; 40.4%) and decreased sequentially to the oldest (86 to 90 years; 3.7%). Across all age groups, lifetime risk of revision was higher for females (ranging from 4.3% to 43.4% vs males 2.9% to 37.4%) and patients with a higher ASA grade (ASA 3 to 4, ranging from 8.8% to 41.2% vs ASA 1 1.8% to 29.8%). The lifetime risk of revision for UKA was double that of TKA across all age groups (ranging from 3.7% to 40.4% for UKA, and 1.6% to 22.4% for TKA). The higher risk of revision in younger patients was associated with aseptic loosening in both sexes and pain in females. Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) accounted for 4% of all UKA revisions, in contrast with 27% for TKA; the risk of PJI was higher for males than females for both procedures. Conclusion. Lifetime risk of revision may be a more meaningful measure of arthroplasty outcomes than implant survival at defined time periods. This study highlights the higher lifetime risk of UKA revision for younger patients, females, and those with a higher ASA grade, which can aid with patient counselling prior to UKA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(6):672–679

Aims. The aim of this study was to identify variables associated with time to revision, demographic details associated with revision indication, and type of prosthesis employed, and to describe the survival of hinge knee arthroplasty (HKA) when used for first-time knee revision surgery and factors that were associated with re-revision. Methods. Patient demographic details, BMI, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, indication for revision, surgical approach, surgeon grade, implant type (fixed and rotating), time of revision from primary implantation, and re-revision if undertaken were obtained from the National Joint Registry data for England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the Isle of Man over an 18-year period (2003 to 2021). Results. There were 3,855 patient episodes analyzed with a median age of 73 years (interquartile range (IQR) 66 to 80), and the majority were female (n = 2,480, 64.3%). The median time to revision from primary knee arthroplasty was 1,219 days (IQR 579 to 2,422). Younger age (p < 0.001), decreasing ASA grade (p < 0.001), and indications for revision of sepsis (p < 0.001), unexplained pain (p < 0.001), non-polyethylene wear (p < 0.001), and malalignment (p < 0.001) were all associated with an earlier time to revision from primary implantation. The median follow-up was 4.56 years (range 0.00 to 17.52), during which there were 410 re-revisions. The overall unadjusted probability of re-revision for all revision HKAs at one, five, and ten years after surgery were 2.7% (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.2 to 3.3), 10.7% (95% CI 9.6 to 11.9), and 16.2% (95% CI 14.5 to 17.9), respectively. Male sex (p < 0.001), younger age (p < 0.001), revision for septic indications (p < 0.001) or implant fracture (p = 0.010), a fixed hinge (p < 0.001), or surgery performed by a non-consultant grade (p = 0.023) were independently associated with an increased risk of re-revision. Conclusion. There were several factors associated with time to first revision. The re-revision rate was 16.2% at ten years; however, the risk factors associated with an increased risk of re-revision could be used to counsel patients regarding their outcome. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(1):47–55

Aims. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has higher revision rates than total knee arthroplasty (TKA). As revision of UKA may be less technically demanding than revision TKA, UKA patients with poor functional outcomes may be more likely to be offered revision than TKA patients with similar outcomes. The aim of this study was to compare clinical thresholds for revisions between TKA and UKA using revision incidence and patient-reported outcomes, in a large, matched cohort at early, mid-, and late-term follow-up. Methods. Analyses were performed on propensity score-matched patient cohorts of TKAs and UKAs (2:1) registered in the New Zealand Joint Registry between 1 January 1999 and 31 December 2019 with an Oxford Knee Score (OKS) response at six months (n, TKA: 16,774; UKA: 8,387), five years (TKA: 6,718; UKA: 3,359), or ten years (TKA: 3,486; UKA: 1,743). Associations between OKS and revision within two years following the score were examined. Thresholds were compared using receiver operating characteristic analysis. Reasons for aseptic revision were compared using cumulative incidence with competing risk. Results. Fewer TKA patients with ‘poor’ outcomes (≤ 25) subsequently underwent revision compared with UKA at six months (5.1% vs 19.6%; p < 0.001), five years (4.3% vs 12.5%; p < 0.001), and ten years (6.4% vs 15.0%; p = 0.024). Compared with TKA, the relative risk for UKA was 2.5-times higher for ‘unknown’ reasons, bearing dislocations, and disease progression. Conclusion. Compared with TKA, more UKA patients with poor outcomes underwent revision from early to long-term follow-up, and were more likely to undergo revision for ‘unknown’ reasons, which suggest a lower clinical threshold for UKA. For UKA, revision risk was higher for bearing dislocations and disease progression. There is supporting evidence that the higher revision UKA rates are associated with lower clinical thresholds for revision and additional modes of failure. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(3):269–276

Abstract. Introduction. Our aim was to investigate trends in the incidence rate and main indication for revision knee replacement (rKR) over the past 15 years in the UK. Methodology. Cross-sectional study from 2006 - 2020 using data from the National Joint Registry (NJR). Crude incidence rates were calculated using population statistics from the Office for National Statistics. Results. Annual total counts of rKR increased from 2743 procedures in 2006 to 6819 procedures in 2019 (149% increase). The incidence rate of rKR increased from 6.3 per 100,000 adults in 2006 (95% CI 6.1 to 6.5) to 14 per 100,000 adults in 2019 (95% CI 14 to 14). Annual increases in the incidence rate of rKR became smaller over the study period. The incidence of rKR was highest in patients aged 70–79 years (50 per 100,000 adults [95% CI 48 to 52]). Aseptic loosening was the most frequent indication for rKR overall (20.5% procedures). However, rKR for aseptic loosening peaked in 2012 and subsequently decreased. rKR for infection increased incrementally over the study period to become the most frequent indication for rKR in 2019 (2.7 per 100,000 adults [95% CI 2.6 to 2.9]). Infection accounted for 17.2% first linked rKR, 36.7% second linked rKR and 50.7% third or more linked rKR. Conclusion. Recent trends suggest slowing of the rate of increase in the incidence of rKR. Infection is now the most common indication for rKR, following recent decreases in rKR for aseptic loosening. Infection was prevalent in re-revision KR procedures

Source of the study: University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand and University of Otago, Christchurch, New Zealand. Outcomes following knee arthroplasty are typically defined as implant survivorship at defined timepoints, or revision incidence over time. These estimates are difficult to conceptualise, and lack context for younger patients with more remaining years of life. We therefore aimed to determine a ‘lifetime’ risk of revision as a more useful metric for total (TKA) and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). The New Zealand Joint Registry was used to identify 96,497 primary TKAs and 13,481 primary UKAs performed between 1999 and 2019. Patient mortality and revision incidence were also extracted. Estimates of lifetime risk were calculated using an actuarial lifetable method. The estimates were stratified by age and gender. Reasons for revision were categorised using previously published standardised definitions. The lifetime risk of UKA revision was two-fold higher than TKA across all age groups (range 3.7-40.4% UKA, 1.6-22.4% TKA). Revision risk was higher for males with TKA (range 3.4%-25.2% males, 1.1%-20% females), but higher for females with UKA (range 4.3%-43.4% vs. 2.9%-37.4% for males). Revision due to infections were higher for TKA (1.5% males, 0.7% females) compared with UKA (0.4% males, 0.1% females). The increased risk in younger UKA patients was associated with higher incidence of aseptic loosening (UKA 2%, TKA 1%) and ‘unexplained pain’ (UKA 2%, TKA 0.2%). The risk for UKA was two-fold higher than TKA, and this was partially explained by a higher proportion of revisions due to ‘unexplained pain’. For TKA, males had higher risk of revision, in contrast to UKA where females had higher risk; this gender difference was associated with higher incidence of infections with TKA. Younger age, gender and higher ASA status were also associated with increased lifetime risk of UKA revision. Lifetime risk of revision can provide a meaningful measure of arthroplasty outcomes to aid patient counselling

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is associated with a higher risk of revision compared with total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The outcomes of knee arthroplasty are typically presented as implant survival or incidence of revision after a set number of years, which can be difficult for patients and clinicians to conceptualise. We aimed to calculate the ‘lifetime risk’ of revision for UKA as a more relatable estimate of risk projection over a patient's remaining lifetime, and make comparisons to TKA. All primary UKAS performed from 1999 to 2019 (n=13,481) captured by the New Zealand Joint Registry (NZJR) were included. The lifetime risk of revision was calculated and stratified by age, gender and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) status. The lifetime risk of revision for UKA was highest in the youngest patients (46-50 years; 40.4%) and lowest in the oldest patients (86-90 years; 3.7%). Lifetime risk of revision was higher for females (range 4.3%-43.4% cf. males 2.9%-37.4%) and patients with higher ASA status (ASA 3-4 range 8.8%-41.2% cf. ASA 1 1.8%-29.8%), regardless of age. The lifetime risk of UKA was two-fold higher than TKA (ranging from 3.7%-40.4% UKA, 1.6%-22.4% TKA) across all age groups. Increased risk of revision in the younger patients was associated with aseptic loosening in both males and females, and pain in females. Periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) accounted for 4% of all UKA revisions, in contrast to 27% for TKA; risk of PJI was higher for males than females for both procedures. The lifetime risk of revision is a more meaningful measure of arthroplasty outcomes and can aid with patient counselling prior to UKA. Findings from this study show the increased lifetime risk of UKA revision for younger patients, females and those with higher ASA status

Introduction. A key outcome measured by national joint registries are revision events. This informs best practice and identifies poor-performing surgical devices. Although registry data often record reasons for revision arthroplasty, interpretation is limited by lack of standardised definitions of revision reasons and objective assessment of radiologic and laboratory parameters. Our study aim was to compare reasons for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) revision reported to the New Zealand Joint Registry (NZJR) with reasons identified by independent clinical review. Methods. A total of 2,272 patients undergoing primary medial and lateral UKA at four large tertiary hospitals between 2000 and 2017 were included. A total of 158 patients underwent subsequent revision with mean follow-up of 8 years. A systematic review of clinical findings, radiographs and operative data was performed to identify revision cases and to determine the reasons for revision using a standardised protocol. These were compared to reasons reported to the NZJR using Chi-squared and Fisher exact tests. Results. Osteoarthritis progression was the most common reason for revision on systematic clinical review (30%), however this was underreported to the registry (4%, p<0.001). A larger proportion of revisions reported to the registry were for ‘unexplained pain’ (30% of cases vs. 4% on clinical review, p<0.001). A reason for revision was not reported to the registry for 24 (15%) of cases. Discussion and Conclusion. We found significant inaccuracies in registry-reported reasons for revision following UKA. These included over-reporting of ‘unexplained pain’, under-reporting of osteoarthritis progression, and failure to identify a reason for revision. Efforts to improve registry capture of revision reasons for UKA should focus on increasing accuracy in these three areas. This could be addressed through standardised recording methods and tailored revision reason options for UKA for surgeons to select when recording the reasons

Aims. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review of the evidence for the use of intraoperative cell salvage in patients undergoing revision hip arthroplasty, and specifically to analyze the available data in order to quantify any associated reduction in the use of allogenic blood transfusion, and the volume which is used. Methods. An electronic search of MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library was completed from the date of their inception to 24 February 2022, using a search strategy and protocol created in conjunction with the PRISMA statement. Inclusion criteria were patients aged > 18 years who underwent revision hip arthroplasty when cell salvage was used. Studies in which pre-donated red blood cells were used were excluded. A meta-analysis was also performed using a random effects model with significance set at p = 0.05. Results. Of the 283 studies which were identified, 11 were included in the systematic review, and nine in the meta-analysis. There was a significant difference (p < 0.001) in the proportion of patients requiring allogenic transfusion between groups, with an odds ratio of 0.331 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.165 to 0.663) associated with the use of cell salvage. For a total of 561 patients undergoing revision hip arthroplasty who were treated with cell salvage, 247 (44.0%) required allogenic transfusion compared with 418 of 643 patients (65.0%) who were treated without cell salvage. For those treated with cell salvage, the mean volume of allogenic blood which was required was 1.95 units (390 ml) per patient (0.7 to 4.5 units), compared with 3.25 units (650 ml) per patient (1.2 to 7.0 units) in those treated without cell salvage. The mean difference of -1.91 units (95% CI -4.0 to 0.2) in the meta-analysis was also significant (p = 0.003). Conclusion. We found a a significant reduction in the need for allogenic blood transfusion when cell salvage was used in patients undergoing revision hip arthroplasty, supporting its routine use in these patients. Further research is required to determine whether this effect is associated with types of revision arthroplasty of differing complexity. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(10):1038–1044

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. Methods. A retrospective review of consecutive MoM hip arthroplasties (MoM-HRAs) using Birmingham Hip Resurfacing was conducted. Data on procedure side, indication, implant sizes and orientation, highest blood cobalt and chromium ion concentrations, and all-cause revision were collected from local and UK National Joint Registry records. Results. A total of 243 hips (205 patients (163 male, 80 female; mean age at surgery 55.3 years (range 25.7 to 75.3)) with MoM-HRA performed between April 2003 and October 2020 were included. Mean follow-up was 11.2 years (range 0.3 to 17.8). Osteoarthritis was the most common indication (93.8%), and 13 hips (5.3%; 7M:6F) showed dysplasia (lateral centre-edge angle < 25°). Acetabular cups were implanted at a median of 45.4° abduction (interquartile range 41.9° - 48.3°) and stems neutral or valgus to the native neck-shaft angle. In all, 11 hips (4.5%; one male, ten females) in ten patients underwent revision surgery at a mean of 7.4 years (range 2.8 to 14.2), giving a cumulative survival rate of 94.8% (95% confidence interval (CI) 91.6% to 98.0%) at ten years, and 93.4% (95% CI 89.3% to 97.6%) at 17 years. For aseptic revision, male survivorship was 100% at 17 years, and 89.6% (95% CI 83.1% to 96.7%) at ten and 17 years for females. Increased metal ion levels were implicated in 50% of female revisions, with the remaining being revised for unexplained pain or avascular necrosis. Conclusion. The Birmingham MoM-HR showed 100% survivorship in males, exceeding the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence ‘5% at ten years’ threshold. Female sex and small component sizes are independent risk factors. Dysplasia alone is not a contraindication to resurfacing. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(11):853–858

Aims. There are limited long-term studies reporting on outcomes of the Zimmer Modular Revision (ZMR) stem, and concerns remain regarding failure. Our primary aim was to determine long-term survival free from all-cause revision and stem-related failure for this modular revision stem in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). Secondary aims included evaluating radiological and functional outcomes. Methods. We retrospectively identified all patients in our institutional database who underwent revision THA using the ZMR system from January 2000 to December 2007. We included 106 patients (108 hips) with a mean follow-up of 14.5 years (2.3 to 22.3). Mean patient age was 69.2 years (37.0 to 89.4), and 51.9% were female (n = 55). Indications for index revision included aseptic loosening (73.1%), infection (16.7%), fracture (9.3%), and stem fracture (0.9%). Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to determine the all-cause and stem-related failure revision-free survival. At most recent follow-up, Oxford Hip Scores (OHS) were collected, and radiological stem stability was determined using the Engh classification. Results. A total of 17 hips (15.7%) underwent re-revision of any component. Indications for re-revision were stem failure (35.3%; n = 6), infection (29.4%; n = 5), instability (29.4%; n = 5), and acetabular aseptic loosening (5.9%; n = 1). The five- and 15-year all-cause survival was 89.7% (95% confidence interval (CI) 86.7 to 92.7) and 83.3% (95% CI 79.6 to 87.0), respectively. There were six re-revisions (5.6%) for stem failure; five for stem fracture and one for aseptic loosening. The five- and 15-year survival free from stem-related failure was 97.2% (95% CI 95.6 to 98.8) and 94.0% (95% CI 91.6 to 96.4), respectively. At final follow-up, the mean OHS was 36.9 (8.0 to 48.0) and 95.7% (n = 66) of surviving modular revision stems were well-fixed in available radiographs. Conclusion. Femoral revision with the ZMR offers satisfactory long-term all-cause revision-free survival, good survival free of stem-related failure, and favourable clinical outcomes. Stem fracture was the most common reason for stem-related failure and occurred both early and late. This highlights the importance of both early and long-term surveillance for stem-related failure. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(5 Supple B):112–117

Aims. Robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (R-UKA) has been proposed as an approach to improve the results of the conventional manual UKA (C-UKA). The aim of this meta-analysis was to analyze the studies comparing R-UKA and C-UKA in terms of clinical outcomes, radiological results, operating time, complications, and revisions. Methods. The literature search was conducted on three databases (PubMed, Cochrane, and Web of Science) on 20 February 2024 according to the guidelines for Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA). Inclusion criteria were comparative studies, written in the English language, with no time limitations, on the comparison of R-UKA and C-UKA. The quality of each article was assessed using the Downs and Black Checklist for Measuring Quality. Results. Among the 3,669 articles retrieved, 21 studies on 19 series of patients were included. A total of 3,074 patients (59.5% female and 40.5% male; mean age 65.2 years (SD 3.9); mean BMI 27.4 kg/m. 2. (SD 2.2)) were analyzed. R-UKA obtained a superior Knee Society Score improvement compared to C-UKA (mean difference (MD) 4.9; p < 0.001) and better Forgotten Joint Score postoperative values (MD 5.5; p = 0.032). The analysis of radiological outcomes did not find a statistically significant difference between the two approaches. R-UKA showed longer operating time (MD 15.6; p < 0.001), but reduced complication and revision rates compared to C-UKA (5.2% vs 10.1% and 4.1% vs 7.2%, respectively). Conclusion. This meta-analysis showed that the robotic approach for UKA provided a significant improvement in functional outcomes compared to the conventional manual technique. R-UKA showed similar radiological results and longer operating time, but reduced complication and revision rates compared to C-UKA. Overall, R-UKA seems to provide relevant benefits over C-UKA in the management of patients undergoing UKA. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(5):374–384

Aims. The success of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is usually measured using functional outcome scores and revision-free survivorship. However, reporting the lifetime risk of revision may be more meaningful to patients when gauging risks, especially in younger patients. We aimed to assess the lifetime risk of revision for patients in different age categories at the time of undergoing primary TKA. Methods. The New Zealand Joint Registry database was used to obtain revision rates, mortality, and the indications for revision for all primary TKAs performed during an 18-year period between January 1999 and December 2016. Patients were stratified into age groups at the time of the initial TKA, and the lifetime risk of revision was calculated according to age, sex, and the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade. The most common indications for revision were also analyzed for each age group. Results. The overall ten-year survival rate was 95.6%. This was lowest in the youngest age group (between 46 and 50 years) and increased sequentially with increasing age. The lifetime risk of requiring revision was 22.4% in those aged between 46 and 50 years at the time of the initial surgery, and decreased linearly with increasing age to 1.15% in those aged between 90 and 95 years at the time of surgery. Higher ASA grades were associated with increased lifetime risk of revision in all age groups. The three commonest indications for revision were aseptic loosening, infection, and unexplained pain. Young males, aged between 46 and 50 years, had the highest lifetime risk of revision (25.2%). Conclusion. Lifetime risk of revision may be a more meaningful measure of outcome than implant survival at defined time periods when counselling patients prior to TKA. This study highlights the considerably higher lifetime risk of revision surgery for all indications, including infection, in younger male patients. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(2):235–241

Implants in total hip replacement (THR) are associated with different clinical and cost-effectiveness profiles,. We estimate the costs and outcomes for NHS patients in the year after THR associated with implant bearing materials using linked routinely collected data. We linked NJR primary elective THR patients for osteoarthritis to HES and National PROMs. We estimated health care costs, health-related quality of life indices, and revision risks, in the year after primary and revision THRs overall. We used generalised linear models adjusting for patient and hospital characteristics and estimated 10-year cumulative probability of revision. We imputed utilities using chained equations for half the sample with missing PROMS. We linked 577,973 elective primary THRs and 11,812 subsequent revisions. One year after primary THR, patients with the cemented THRs using cobalt chrome or stainless steel head with HCLPE liner/cup cost the NHS, on average, £13,101 (95%CI £13,080,£13,122), had an average quality-of-life score of 0.788 (95%CI 0.787,0.788), and a 10-year revision probability of 1.9% (95%CI 1.6,2.3). Compared to the reference, patients receiving a cemented THR with delta ceramic head and HCLPE liner/cup, hybrid THR with delta ceramic head and HCLPE liner/cup, and hybrid THR with alumina head and HCLPE liner/cup had lower 1-year costs (-£572 \[95% CI -£775,-£385\], -£346 \[-£501,-£192\], -£371 \[-£574,-£168\] respectively), better quality of life (0.007 \[95% CI 0.003,0.011\], 0.013 \[0.010,0.016\], 0.009 \[0.005,0.013\] respectively), and lower 10-year revision probabilities (1.4% \[1.03,2.0\], 1.5 \[1.3,1.7\], 1.6%\[1.2,2.1\] respectively). Implant bearing materials are associated with varying mean costs and health outcomes after primary THR. Ours is the first study to derive costs and health outcomes from large, linked databases using multiple imputation methods to deal with bias. Our findings are useful for commissioning and procurement decisions and to inform a subsequent cost-effectiveness model with more granular detail on THR implant types

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. Methods. NJR shoulder arthroplasty records were linked to Hospital Episode Statistics and the National Mortality Register. TSA and HA performed for osteoarthritis (OA) in patients with an intact rotator cuff were included. Metal and ceramic humeral head prostheses were matched within separate TSA and HA groups using propensity scores based on 12 and 11 characteristics, respectively. The primary outcome was time to first revision and the secondary outcome was non-revision reoperation. Results. A total of 4,799 TSAs (3,578 metal, 1,221 ceramic) and 1,363 HAs (1,020 metal, 343 ceramic) were included. The rate of revision was higher for metal compared with ceramic TSA, hazard ratio (HR) 3.31 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.67 to 6.58). At eight years, prosthesis survival for ceramic TSA was 98.7% (95% CI 97.3 to 99.4) compared with 96.4% (95% CI 95.2 to 97.3) for metal TSA. The majority of revision TSAs were for cuff insufficiency or instability/dislocation. There was no significant difference in the revision rate for ceramic compared with metal head HA (HR 1.33 (95% CI 0.76 to 2.34)). For ceramic HA, eight-year prosthetic survival was 92.8% (95% CI 86.9 to 96.1), compared with 91.6% (95% CI 89.3 to 93.5) for metal HA. The majority of revision HAs were for cuff failure. Conclusion. The rate of all-cause revision was higher following metal compared with ceramic humeral head TSA in patients with OA and an intact rotator cuff. There was no difference in the revision rate for HA according to bearing surface. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(5):482–491

Aims. Dislocation remains a leading cause of failure following revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). While dual-mobility (DM) bearings have been shown to mitigate this risk, options are limited when retaining or implanting an uncemented shell without modular DM options. In these circumstances, a monoblock DM cup, designed for cementing, can be cemented into an uncemented acetabular shell. The goal of this study was to describe the implant survival, complications, and radiological outcomes of this construct. Methods. We identified 64 patients (65 hips) who had a single-design cemented DM cup cemented into an uncemented acetabular shell during revision THA between 2018 and 2020 at our institution. Cups were cemented into either uncemented cups designed for liner cementing (n = 48; 74%) or retained (n = 17; 26%) acetabular components. Median outer head diameter was 42 mm. Mean age was 69 years (SD 11), mean BMI was 32 kg/m. 2. (SD 8), and 52% (n = 34) were female. Survival was assessed using Kaplan-Meier methods. Mean follow-up was two years (SD 0.97). Results. There were nine cemented DM cup revisions: three for periprosthetic joint infection, three for acetabular aseptic loosening from bone, two for dislocation, and one for a broken cup-cage construct. The two-year survivals free of aseptic DM revision and dislocation were both 92%. There were five postoperative dislocations, all in patients with prior dislocation or abductor deficiency. On radiological review, the DM cup remained well-fixed at the cemented interface in all but one case. Conclusion. While dislocation was not eliminated in this series of complex revision THAs, this technique allowed for maximization of femoral head diameter and optimization of effective acetabular component position during cementing. Of note, there was only one failure at the cemented interface. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(4):352–358

Aims. Nonagenarians (aged 90 to 99 years) have experienced the fastest percent decile population growth in the USA recently, with a consequent increase in the prevalence of nonagenarians living with joint arthroplasties. As such, the number of revision total hip arthroplasties (THAs) and total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) in nonagenarians is expected to increase. We aimed to determine the mortality rate, implant survivorship, and complications of nonagenarians undergoing aseptic revision THAs and revision TKAs. Methods. Our institutional total joint registry was used to identify 96 nonagenarians who underwent 97 aseptic revisions (78 hips and 19 knees) between 1997 and 2018. The most common indications were aseptic loosening and periprosthetic fracture for both revision THAs and revision TKAs. Mean age at revision was 92 years (90 to 98), mean BMI was 27 kg/m. 2. (16 to 47), and 67% (n = 65) were female. Mean time between primary and revision was 18 years (SD 9). Kaplan-Meier survival was used for patient mortality, and compared to age- and sex-matched control populations. Reoperation risk was assessed using cumulative incidence with death as a competing risk. Mean follow-up was five years. Results. Mortality rates were 9%, 18%, 26%, and 62% at 90 days, one year, two years, and five years, respectively, but similar to control populations. There were 43 surgical complications and five reoperations, resulting in a cumulative incidence of reoperation of 4% at five years. Medical complications were common, with a cumulative incidence of 65% at 90 days. Revisions for periprosthetic fractures were associated with higher mortality and higher 90-day risk of medical complications compared to revisions for aseptic loosening. Conclusion. Contemporary revision THAs and TKAs appeared to be relatively safe in selected nonagenarians managed with multidisciplinary teams. Cause of revision affected morbidity and mortality risks. While early medical and surgical complications were frequent, they seldom resulted in reoperation. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(6):649–656

Aims. Histology is widely used for diagnosis of persistent infection during reimplantation in two-stage revision hip and knee arthroplasty, although data on its utility remain scarce. Therefore, this study aims to assess the predictive value of permanent sections at reimplantation in relation to reinfection risk, and to compare results of permanent and frozen sections. Methods. We retrospectively collected data from 226 patients (90 hips, 136 knees) with periprosthetic joint infection who underwent two-stage revision between August 2011 and September 2021, with a minimum follow-up of one year. Histology was assessed via the SLIM classification. First, we analyzed whether patients with positive permanent sections at reimplantation had higher reinfection rates than patients with negative histology. Further, we compared permanent and frozen section results, and assessed the influence of anatomical regions (knee versus hip), low- versus high-grade infections, as well as first revision versus multiple prior revisions on the histological result at reimplantation. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), chi-squared tests, and Kaplan-Meier estimates were calculated. Results. Overall, the reinfection rate was 18%. A total of 14 out of 82 patients (17%) with positive permanent sections at reimplantation experienced reinfection, compared to 26 of 144 patients (18%) with negative results (p = 0.996). Neither permanent sections nor fresh frozen sections were significantly associated with reinfection, with a sensitivity of 0.35, specificity of 0.63, PPV of 0.17, NPV of 0.81, and accuracy of 58%. Histology was not significantly associated with reinfection or survival time for any of the analyzed sub-groups. Permanent and frozen section results were in agreement for 91% of cases. Conclusion. Permanent and fresh frozen sections at reimplantation in two-stage revision do not serve as a reliable predictor for reinfection. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(4):372–379

The Revision Hip Complexity Classification (RHCC) was developed by modified Delphi system in 2022 to provide a comprehensive, reproducible framework for the multidisciplinary discussion of complex revision hip surgery. The aim of this study was to assess the validity, intra-relater and inter-relater reliability of the RHCC. Radiographs and clinical vignettes of 20 consecutive patients who had undergone revision of Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA) at our unit during the previous 12-month period were provided to observers. Five observers, comprising 3 revision hip consultants, 1 hip fellow and 1 ST3-8 registrar were familiarised with the RHCC. Each revision THA case was classified on two separate occasions by each observer, with a mean time between assessments of 42.6 days (24–57). Inter-observer reliability was assessed using the Fleiss™ Kappa statistic and percentage agreement. Intra-observer reliability was assessed using the Cohen Kappa statistic. Validity was assessed using percentage agreement and Cohen Kappa comparing observers to the RHCC web-based application result. All observers were blinded to patient notes, operation notes and post-operative radiographs throughout the process. Inter-observer reliability showed fair agreement in both rounds 1 and 2 of the survey (0.296 and 0.353 respectively), with a percentage agreement of 69% and 75%. Inter-observer reliability was highest in H3-type revisions with kappa values of 0.577 and 0.441. Mean intra-observer reliability showed moderate agreement with a kappa value of 0.446 (0.369 to 0.773). Validity percentage agreement was 44% and 39% respectively, with mean kappa values of 0.125 and 0.046 representing only slight agreement. This study demonstrates that classification using the RHCC without utilisation of the web-based application is unsatisfactory, showing low validity and reliability. Reliability was higher for more complex H3-type cases. The use of the RHCC web app is recommended to ensure the accurate and reliable classification of revision THA cases

Aims. This study aimed to describe the use of revision knee arthroplasty in Australia and examine changes in lifetime risk over a decade. Methods. De-identified individual-level data on all revision knee arthroplasties performed in Australia from 2007 to 2017 were obtained from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. Population data and life tables were obtained from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The lifetime risk of revision surgery was calculated for each year using a standardized formula. Separate calculations were undertaken for males and females. Results. In total, 43,188 revision knee arthroplasty procedures were performed in Australia during the study period, with a median age at surgery of 69 years (interquartile range (IQR) 62 to 76). In 2017, revision knee arthroplasty rates were highest for males aged 70 to 79 years (102.9 procedures per 100,000 population). Lifetime risk of revision knee arthroplasty for females increased slightly from 1.61% (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.53% to 1.69%) in 2007 to 2.22% (95% CI 2.13% to 2.31%) in 2017. A similar pattern was evident for males, with a lifetime risk of 1.43% (95% CI 1.36% to 1.51%) in 2007 and 2.02% (95% CI 1.93% to 2.11%) in 2017. A decline in procedures performed for loosening/lysis (from 41% in 2007 to 24% in 2017) and pain (from 14% to 9%) was evident, while infection became an increasingly common indication (from 19% in 2007 to 29% in 2017). Conclusion. Well-validated national registry data can help us understand the epidemiology of revision knee arthroplasty, including changing clinical indications. Despite a small increase over a decade, the lifetime risk of revision knee arthroplasty in Australia is low at one in 45 females and one in 50 males. These methods offer a population-level approach to quantifying revision burden that can be used for ongoing national surveillance and between-country comparisons. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(5):613–619

Introduction. Total ankle arthroplasty (TAA) is an increasingly popular treatment option for patients with end-stage ankle arthritis. However, for most implant systems, failure rates of 10–20% have been reported within the first 10 years after primary TAA. Pain is the primary symptom that indicates failure of TAA but cause of it can be difficult to establish. Methods. All patients who underwent a primary TAA at our center were included in the study. The clinical outcomes were studied for patients requiring a further revision procedure following primary TAA. The reasons for revision surgery and outcomes of surgery were analyzed using appropriate inferential statistical tests. Results. Between 2007 and 2018, 42 primary TAA required revisions in 40 patients. There were 25 men (59.5%) and 15 women (35.7%) with mean age of 57.5 years the time of primary TAA. All patients had undergone primary procedure at a mean duration of 3.5 years previously (range: 3 months to 10 years). Of the total revision procedures, 12/40 (30%) of revisions were carried out due to malalignment, 10/42 (23.8%) due to loosening of the implants or bone subsidence, 5/42 procedures (11.9%) following infection, 4/42 (9.5%) due to polyethylene migration, 1/42 (2.3%) due to fracture and 1/42 (2.3%) due to Charcot arthropathy. In 9/42 (21.4%) cases, imaging showed no objective reason for pain. 50% of patients who underwent revision TAA reported 78.5% satisfaction with results of surgery at 2 years follow up post-operatively. Conclusion. Major reasons for revising primary TAR at our centre are mal-alignment, implant loosening / bone subsidence and suspicion of infection and pain. In-spite of undergoing a complex revision surgery, patients report 78.5% satisfaction from outcomes of surgery

Aims. With increasing burden of revision hip arthroplasty (THA), one of the major challenges is the management of proximal femoral bone loss associated with previous multiple surgeries. Proximal femoral arthroplasty (PFA) has already been popularized for tumour surgeries. Our aim was to describe the outcome of using PFA in these demanding non-neoplastic cases. Methods. A retrospective review of 25 patients who underwent PFA for non-neoplastic indications between January 2009 and December 2015 was undertaken. Their clinical and radiological outcome, complication rates, and survival were recorded. All patients had the Stanmore Implant – Modular Endo-prosthetic Tumour System (METS). Results. At mean follow-up of 5.9 years, there were no periprosthetic fractures. Clearance of infection was achieved in 63.6% of cases. One hip was re-revised to pseudo arthroplasty for deep infection. Instability was noted in eight of the hips (32%), of which seven needed further surgery. Out of these eight hips with instability, five had preoperative infection. Deep infection was noted in five of the hips (20%), of which four were primarily revised for infection. One patient had aseptic loosening of the femoral component and awaits revision surgery. The Kaplan-Meier survivorship free of revision of any component for any reason was 72% (95% confidence interval (CI) 51.3% to 92.7%), and for revisions of only femoral component for any reason was 96% (95% CI 86.3% to 105.7%) at five years. Conclusion. Dislocation and infection remain the major cause for failure, particularly in patients with pre-existing infection. The use of dual mobility cups, silver-coated implants, and less aggressive postoperative rehabilitation regimens would possibly aid in the reduction of complications. PFA performed in patients with periprosthetic fracture seem to fair better. This study supports the judicious use of PFA in non-oncological revision hip arthroplasties, and that they be performed by experienced revision arthroplasty surgeons. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(3):229–235

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. Methods. A single-center prospective cohort study was undertaken between 2016 and 2022. All patients were followed up for a minimum of 6 months. Patients undertook the Manchester Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MoxFQ) and EQ-5D health quality questionnaires pre-operatively, at 6 months and yearly for life. The Mann Whitney test was undertaken for statistical analysis. Results. A total of 165 primary and 71 revision ankle replacements were performed between 2016 and 2022. The mean age was 71 years for primary replacements and 69 years for revisions. The INFINITY was utilized in the majority of primary total ankle replacements. Revision replacements were either the INBONE II or INVISION and they were most often revising the MOBILITY implant. The main indication for revision was aseptic loosening (83%). Other causes included infection, malalignment and insert wear. The overall MoxFQ improved by a mean of 46.5 for primaries and 40.2 for revisions. The EQ-5D score also showed overall improvements with the mean difference in mobility increasing by 1.6. Conclusion. Both primary and revision ankle replacements result in improved functional scores at 6 months, 1 year and 2 years. In this cohort with the implants used, both primary and revision ankle replacements demonstrate similar improvements in functional scores

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

Introduction. Total ankle replacement as a valid treatment for end stage ankle arthritis, is gaining popularity and every year there is an increasing number of procedures. With revision rates as high as 21% at 5 years and 43% at 10 years there is a need for understanding and reporting the outcome of revision ankle replacement. Our aim was to study the patient reported outcomes following revision TAR with a minimum of 2 year follow up. Methods. All patients that underwent a revision total ankle replacement between 2012 and 2016 were included in the study. All patients received a post-operative questionnaire comprising of MOX-FQ score, EQ-5D (UK) and Foot and Ankle outcomes scores (FAOS) and patients satisfaction questionnaire with a minimum of 2 years follow up. Results. 33 patients had a revision total ankle replacement between 2012 and 2016. 2 patients were deceased therefore 31 patients were included in the study. 4 patients declined participation for completing questionnaires. We received 15/27 (55.5%) completed questionnaires. The mean MOX-FQ average domain score for pain was (50.6 ± 26.9), walking/standing (62.4 ± 36.5) and social function was (43.7± 31.0). The mean FAOS scores were (52.5 ± 30.6; pain), (54.5 ± 29.2; symptoms), (62.1 ± 30.5; ADL) and (35.5 ± 28.2; for quality of life). The mean overall health score today for EQ-5D was 73.9/100. 50% of patients were satisfied with the pain relief and return to sports and recreation obtained following the operation, 57% were satisfied with the improved in daily activities. 78.5% were overall satisfied with the results from surgery. Conclusion. Revision total ankle replacement gives overall satisfactory results demonstrated from patients reported outcomes at a minimum of 2 years following surgery

Introduction. A proportion of patients with hip and knee prosthetic joint infection (PJI) undergo multiple revisions with the aim of eradicating infection and improving quality of life. The aim of this study was to describe the microbiology cultured from multiply revised hip and knee replacement procedures to guide antimicrobial therapy at the time of surgery. Patients and Methods. Consecutive patients were retrospectively identified from databases at two specialist orthopaedic centres in the United Kingdom between 2011 and 2019. Patient were included who had undergone repeat revision total knee replacement (TKR) or total hip replacement (THR) for infection, following an initial failed revision for infection. Results. 106 patients were identified, of which 74 underwent revision TKR and 32 underwent revision THR. Mean age at first revision was 67 years (SD 10). Charlson Comorbidity Index was <2 for 31 patients, 3–4 for 57 patients, and >5 for 18 patients. All patients underwent >2 revisions, 73 patients received 3, 47 patients received 4, 31 patients received 5, and 21 patients received >6. After six revisions, 90% of patients cultured different organisms than the initial revision, and 53% of organisms were multi-drug resistant species. The most frequent organisms at each revision were coagulase negative Staphylococcus (36%) and Staphylococcus aureus (19%). Fungus was cultured from 3% of revisions and 21% of infections were polymicrobial. Conclusion. Patients undergoing multiple revisions for PJI are highly likely to experience a change in organisms and sensitivities with each subsequent revision. It is important to administer empirical antibiotics at each subsequent revision, appreciating known drug resistance from previous cultures. Our results do not support routine use of empirical antifungals

Aims. The aim of this study was to assess factors associated with the estimated lifetime risk of revision surgery after primary knee arthroplasty (KA). Methods. All patients from the Scottish Arthroplasty Project dataset undergoing primary KA during the period 1 January 1998 to 31 December 2019 were included. The cumulative incidence function for revision and death was calculated up to 20 years. Adjusted analyses used cause-specific Cox regression modelling to determine the influence of patient factors. The lifetime risk was calculated as a percentage for patients aged between 45 and 99 years using multiple-decrement life table methodology. Results. The estimated lifetime risk of revision ranged between 32.7% (95% confidence interval (CI) 22.6 to 47.3) for patients aged 45 to 49 years and 0.6% (95% CI 0.1 to 4.5) for patients aged over 90 years. At 20 years, the overall cumulative incidence of revision (6.8% (95% CI 6.6 to 7.0)) was significantly less than that of death (66.3% (95% CI 65.4 to 67.1)). Adjusted analyses demonstrated converse effect of increasing age on risk of revision (hazard ratio (HR) 0.5 (95% CI 0.5 to 0.6)) and death (HR 3.6 (95% CI 3.4 to 3.7)). Male sex was associated with increased risks of revision (HR 1.1 (95% CI 1.1 to 1.2); p < 0.001) and death (HR 1.4 (95% CI 1.3 to 1.4); p < 0.001). Compared to patients undergoing primary KA for osteoarthritis, patients with inflammatory arthropathy had a higher risk of death (HR 1.7 (95% CI 1.7 to 1.8); p < 0.001), but were less likely to be revised (HR 0.9 (95% CI 0.7 to 1.0); p < 0.001). Patients with a greater number of comorbidities (HR 1.4 (95% CI 1.3 to 1.4)) and greater levels of socioeconomic deprivation (HR 1.4 (95% CI 1.4 to 1.5)) were at increased risk of death, but neither increased the risk of revision. Conclusion. The estimated lifetime risk of revision KA varied depending on patient sex, age, and underlying diagnosis. Patients aged between 45 and 49 years had a one in three risk of undergoing revision surgery within their lifetime, which decreased with age to one in 159 in those aged 90 years or more. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(12):1313–1322

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

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. Methods. Between 2012 and 2020, across two centres, 94 patients underwent revision of Birmingham MoM hip arthroplasties or resurfacings. Mean age was 65.5 years (33 to 87). In 53 patients (56.4%), the acetabular component was retained and dual-mobility bearings were used (DM); in 41 (43.6%) the acetabulum was revised (AR). Patients underwent follow-up of minimum two-years (mean 4.6 (2.1 to 8.5) years). Results. In the DM group, two (3.8%) patients underwent further surgery: one (1.9%) for dislocation and one (1.9%) for infection. In the AR group, four (9.8%) underwent further procedures: two (4.9%) for loosening of the acetabular component and two (4.9%) following dislocations. There were no other dislocations in either group. In the DM group, operating time (68.4 vs 101.5 mins, p < 0.001), postoperative drop in haemoglobin (16.6 vs 27.8 g/L, p < 0.001), and length of stay (1.8 vs 2.4 days, p < 0.001) were significantly lower. There was a significant reduction in serum metal ions postoperatively in both groups (p < 0.001), although there was no difference between groups for this reduction (p = 0.674 (cobalt); p = 0.186 (chromium)). Conclusion. In selected patients with Birmingham MoM hips, where the acetabular component is well-fixed and in a satisfactory position with no surface damage, the metal head can be exchanged for polyethylene ADM/MDM bearings with retention of the acetabular prosthesis. This presents significant benefits, with a shorter procedure and a lower risk of complications. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(6):514–523

Aims. Despite higher rates of revision after total hip arthroplasty (THA) being reported for uncemented stems in patients aged > 75 years, they are frequently used in this age group. Increased mortality after cemented fixation is often used as a justification, but recent data do not confirm this association. The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of the design of the stem and the type of fixation on the rate of revision and immediate postoperative mortality, focusing on the age and sex of the patients. Methods. A total of 333,144 patients with primary osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip who underwent elective THA between November 2012 and September 2022, using uncemented acetabular components without reconstruction shells, from the German arthroplasty registry were included in the study. The revision rates three years postoperatively for four types of stem (uncemented, uncemented with collar, uncemented short, and cemented) were compared within four age groups: < 60 years (Young), between 61 and 70 years (Mid-I), between 71 and 80 years (Mid-II), and aged > 80 years (Old). A noninferiority analysis was performed on the most frequently used designs of stem. Results. The design of the stem was found to have no significant influence on the rate of revision for either sex in the Young group. Uncemented collared stems had a significantly lower rate of revision compared with the other types of stem for females in the Mid-I group. There was a significantly higher rate of revision for uncemented stems in females in the Mid-II group compared with all other types of stem, while in males the rate for uncemented stems was only significantly higher than the rate for cemented stems. Cemented stems had a significantly lower revision rate compared with uncemented and short stems for both sexes in the Old cohort, as did females with collared stems. The rate of immediate postoperative mortality was similar for all types of stem in the Old age group, as were the American Society of Anesthesiologists grades. Conclusion. In patients aged > 80 years, uncemented and short stems had significantly higher revision rates compared with cemented and collared stems, especially in females. The design of the stem and type of fixation have to be analyzed in more detail than only considering cemented and uncemented fixation, in order to further improve the success of THA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(3 Supple A):130–136

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

The purpose was to determine the lifetime risk of re-operation due to specific complications related to dual mobility using re-operation as a competing risk, excluding loosening, periprosthetic fracture, and infection. 1503 mono-block dual mobility total hip arthroplasty (DM-THAs). Defining the re-operation when anesthesia (for dislocation) and revision when the implant changed. Surgery (801 for primary, 702 for revision with 201 for recurrent dislocation and 501 for loosening) performed between 1990 and 2020 in average 81-year-old (range 50–102) patients, with 522 living patients at 10 years follow-up. During the first month, outer dislocation (60 cases; 4%) was the cause re-operation (1% among primary and 6 % among revisions). Twenty-four intra-prosthetic dislocations (IPD) were an iatrogenic consequence of a failed closed reduction (reduction maneuver dissociating the inner head) with 1.6% revision. Between 1 month and 1 year, 22 new outer dislocations, while 25 of the 60 “first month” dislocations had recurrent dislocation. Fifteen other IPDs as iatrogenic consequences were observed. At one year, the cumulative revision was 3% (49 of 82 dislocations). Between 1- 10-year FU, 132 other dislocations, and 45 other revisions for dislocations were observed. Corrosion was another cause of revision (37 cases): between the cobalt-chromium shell and the femoral neck (23 hips), or 14 crevice corrosion between the trunnion and the metal head (trunnion damage). In summary, at 10-year: dislocation first cause of re-operation (214 anesthesia, 14%), while among 131 revisions (8.9 %) the 55 iatrogenic intra-prosthetic dislocations were the first revision cause before 39 recurrent dislocations and 37 corrosions. The 522 patients followed ten years or more had a 15% risk revision due to DM specific complications during their lifetime and 10% more risk associated with loosening (6%), periprosthetic fracture (2%) and infection (2%)

Aim. The prevalence of unexpected positive cultures (UPC) in aseptic revision surgery of the joint with a prior septic revision procedure in the same joint remain unknown. The purpose of this study was to determine the prevalence of UPC in aseptic revisions performed in patients with a previous septic revision in the same joint. As secondary outcome measure, we explore possible risk factors associated with UPC and the re-revision rates. Method. This retrospective single-center study includes all patients between January 2016 and October 2018 with an aseptic revision total hip or knee arthroplasty procedure with a prior septic revision in the same joint. Patients with less than three microbiology samples, without joint aspiration or with aseptic revision surgery performed <3 weeks after a septic revision were excluded. UPC was defined as a single positive culture in a revision that the surgeon had classified as aseptic according to the 2018 International Consensus Meeting. Results. A total of 139 revision total hip/knee arthroplasties in patients with a previous septic revision were performed during the study period. After excluding 47 cases with insufficient information, a total of 92 patients were recruited for final analysis. The patient cohort consist of 52 males and 40 females with a mean age of 70 years (±10.6). There were 66 (71.7%) hips and 26 (28.3%) knees. The mean time between the septic and the aseptic revision was 83 months (±89). The two main causes for the aseptic revision were aseptic loosening (n=57, 62%) followed by instability (n=21, 22.9%). We identified 11 (12%) UPC in the entire cohort, while in 3 cases there was a concordance of the germ compared to the previous septic surgery. There were no differences for the presence of UPC between hips and knees (p=0.282), diabetes (p=0.701), immunosuppression (p= 0.252), previous one-stage or two-stages septic revision (p=0.316), or between the causes for the aseptic revision ((p=0.429). There was no correlation between the UPC and time after the septic revision (p=0.773). Conclusions. The prevalence of UPC in this specific group was similar to those reported in the literature for aseptic revisons. More studies, regarding this patient group are necessitated to better understand and more securely interprete the results in those high-risk aseptic revisions

Aim. Surgical options for management of a failed ankle arthroplasty are currently limited; typically conversion to fusion is recommended with only a few patients being considered for revision replacement surgery. This paper presents our experience of revision ankle replacements in a cohort of patients with failed primary replacements. Method. A total of 18 revision TAR in 17 patients were performed in patients with aseptic loosening. The technique was performed by a single surgeon (CSK) over a 4 year period between July 2014 and August 2018 using the Inbone total ankle replacement system. Patient demographics and clinical outcomes were collected retrospectively using - MOXFQ, EQ5D, VAS pain score and patient satisfaction questionnaires. Results. 12 right and 6 left ankle replacements were revised in 17 patients (11 male/ 6 female). The mean age at revision was 69.1 years (range 56–81 years) with a mean BMI of 31. The mean surgical time was 171 minutes with 22% of cases requiring bone grafting. 6 patients had early wound complications, all superficial and settled with dressings. There were no deep infections, 2 patients had further surgery for exploration for possible nerve injuries. At a mean follow up of 20.6 months, 4 patients had mild/moderate ongoing pain with the majority of patients being satisfied with the outcome of their surgery. Conclusion. This study represents one of the largest group of patients reported to have undergone revision total ankle arthroplasty. Our experience shows that this results in acceptable level of complications and provides satisfactory function in most patients. We feel revision TAR is a viable option in patients with failed primary arthroplasty who wish to continue to maintain mobility at the ankle joint

This study aimed to examine the changing trends in the reasons for total hip replacement (THR) revision surgery, in one country over a twenty-one year period, in order to assess whether changes in arthroplasty practices have impacted revision patterns and whether an awareness of these changes can be used to guide clinical practice and reduce future revision rates. The reason for revision THR performed between January 1999 and December 2019 was extracted from the New Zealand Joint Registry (NZJR). The results were then grouped into seven 3-year periods to allow for clearer visualization of trends. The reasons were compared across the seven time periods and trends in prosthesis use, patient age, gender, BMI and ASA grade were also reviewed. We compared the reasons for early revision, within one year, with the overall revision rates. There were 20,740 revision THR registered of which 7665 were revisions of hips with the index procedure registered during the 21 year period. There has been a statistically significant increase in both femoral fracture (4.1 – 14.9%, p<0.001) and pain (8.1 – 14.9%, p<0.001) as a reason for hip revision. While dislocation has significantly decreased from 57.6% to 17.1% (p<0.001). Deep infection decreased over the first 15 years but has subsequently seen further increases over the last 6 years. Conversely both femoral and acetabular loosening increased over the first 12 years but have subsequently decreased over the last 9 years. The rate of early revisions rose from 0.86% to 1.30% of all revision procedures, with a significant rise in revision for deep infection (13-33% of all causes, p<0.001) and femoral fracture (4-18%, p<0.001), whereas revision for dislocation decreased (59-30%, p<0.001). Adjusting for age and gender femoral fracture and deep infection rates remained significant for both (p<0.05). Adjusting for age, gender and ASA was only significant for infection. The most troubling finding was the increased rate of deep infection in revision THR, with no obvious linked pattern, whereas, the reduction in revision for dislocation, aseptic femoral and acetabular loosening can be linked to the changing patterns of the use of larger femoral heads and improved bearing surfaces

Source of the study: University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand and University of Otago, Christchurch, New Zealand. Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are predictors of knee arthroplasty revision. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is effective for patients with the correct indications, however has higher revision rates than total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Different revision thresholds for the procedures have been postulated. Our aims were to investigate: 1) if PROMs could predict knee arthroplasty revision within two years of the score at six months, five years and ten years follow-up, and 2) if revision ‘thresholds’ differed between TKA and UKA. All TKAs and UKAs captured by the New Zealand Joint Registry between 1999 and 2019 with at least one OKS response at six months (TKA n=27,708, UKA n=8,415), five years (TKA n=11,519, UKA n=3,365) or ten years (TKA n=6,311, UKA n=1,744) were included. were propensity-score matched 2:1 with UKAs for comparison of revision thresholds. Logistic regression indicated that for every one-unit decrease in OKS, the odds of TKA and UKA revision decreased by 10% and 11% at six months, 10% and 12% at five years and 9% and 5% at ten years. Fewer TKA patients with ‘poor’ outcomes (≤25) subsequently underwent revision compared with UKA at six months (5.1% vs. 19.6%, p<0.001), five years (4.3% vs. 12.5%, p<0.001) and ten years (6.4%vs. 15.0%, p=0.02). Compared with TKA, UKA patients were 2.5 times more likely to undergo revision for ‘unknown’ reasons, bearing dislocations and disease progression. The OKS is a strong predictor of subsequent knee arthroplasty revision within two years of the score from early to late term. A lower revision threshold was found with UKA when compared with a matched TKA cohort. Higher revision rates of UKA are associated with both lower clinical thresholds for revision and additional modes of UKA failure

PFFs are an increasing burden presenting to the acute trauma services. The purpose of this study is to show that cemented revision for Vancouver B2/B3 PFFs is a safe option in the geriatric population, allows early pain-free weight bearing and comparable to a control-group of uncemented stems with regard to return to theatre and revision surgery. A retrospective review was conducted of all PFFs treated in a Level 1 trauma centre from 2015-2020. Follow up x-rays and clinical course through electronic chart was reviewed for 78 cemented revisions and 49 uncemented revisions for PFF. Primary endpoints were all cause revision and return to theatre for any reason. Secondary endpoints recorded mobility status and all-cause mortality. In the cemented group there were 73 Vancouver B2, 5 Vancouver B3 PFF; the mean age was 79.7 years and mean radiological follow-up of 11.9 months. In the cementless group there were 32 Vancouver B2 and 17 Vancouver B3 PFFs; with all 49 patients undergoing distally bearing uncemented revision, the mean age was 72.7 years and mean radiological follow-up of 21.3 months. Patients treated with a cemented prosthesis had significantly higher ASA score (2.94 -v- 2.43, p<0.001). The primary endpoints showed that there was no significant difference in all cause revision 3/78 and 5/49 p=0.077, or return to theatre 13/78 -v- 12/49 p=0.142. Secondary endpoints revealed no significant difference in in-hospital mortality. The cementless group were more likely to be mobilising without any aid at latest follow-up 35/49 -v- 24/78 p<0.001. The use of cemented revision femoral component in the setting of PFFs is one option in the algorithm for management of unstable PFFs according to the Vancouver classification. Evidence from this case-control study, shows that the all-cause revision and return to theatre for any cause was comparable in both groups

Aim. Previous publications have suggested that the incidence of revisions due to infection after THA is increasing. We performed updated time-trend analyses of risk and timing of revision due to infection after primary THAs in the Nordic countries during the period 2004–2018. Methods. 569,463 primary THAs reported to the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association from 2004 through 2018 were studied. We estimated adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) with 95% confidence interval by Cox regression with the first revision due to infection after primary THA as endpoint. The risk of revision was investigated. In addition, we explored changes in the time span from primary THA to revision due to infection. Results. 5,653 (1.0%) were revised due to infection. The risk of revision due to infection increased through the study period. Compared to the period 2004–2008, the aHRs were 1.4 (95%CI 1.3–1.5) for 2009–2013, and 1.9 (1.7–2.0) for 2014–2018. We found an increased risk in all four Nordic countries. Compared to 2004–2008, the aHR due to infection 0–30 days after THA was 2.5 (2.1–2.9) for 2009–2013 and 3.4 (3.0–3.9) for 2013–2018. The aHR of revision due to infection 31–90 days after THA was 1.5 (1.3–1.9) for 2009–2013 and 2.5 (2.1–3.0) for 2013–2018, compared to 2004–2008. Beyond 91 days after THA, the risk of revision due to infection was stable over the whole study period. Interpretation. The risk of revision due to deep infection after THA nearly doubled throughout the period 2004–2018. This increase was mainly due to an increased risk of early revisions. The cause for these changes may be multifactorial (patient selection, diagnostics, revision strategy, completeness of reporting, etc.), are not possible to disclose in the present study, and warrants further research

Aims. The Exeter V40 femoral stem is the most implanted stem in the National Joint Registry (NJR) for primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). In 2004, the 44/00/125 stem was released for use in ‘cement-in-cement’ revision cases. It has, however, been used ‘off-label’ as a primary stem when patient anatomy requires a smaller stem with a 44 mm offset. We aimed to investigate survival of this implant in comparison to others in the range when used in primary THAs recorded in the NJR. Methods. We analyzed 328,737 primary THAs using the Exeter V40 stem, comprising 34.3% of the 958,869 from the start of the NJR to December 2018. Our exposure was the stem, and the outcome was all-cause construct revision. We stratified analyses into four groups: constructs using the 44/00/125 stem, those using the 44/0/150 stem, those including a 35.5/125 stem, and constructs using any other Exeter V40 stem. Results. In all 328,737 THAs using an Exeter V40 stem, the revision estimate was 2.8% (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.7 to 2.8). The 44/00/125 stem was implanted in 2,158 primary THAs, and the ten-year revision estimate was 4.9% (95% CI 3.6 to 6.8). Controlling for age, sex, year of operation, indication, and American Society of Anesthesiologists grade demonstrated an increased overall hazard of revision for constructs using the 44/00/125 stem compared to constructs using other Exeter V40 femoral stems (hazard ratio 1.8 (95% CI 1.4 to 2.3)). Conclusion. Although the revision estimate is within the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence ten-year benchmark, survivorship of constructs using the 44/00/125 stem appears to be lower than the rest of the range. Adjusted analyses will not take into account ‘confounding by indication’, e.g. patients with complex anatomy who may have a higher risk of revision. Surgeons and patients should be reassured but be aware of the observed increased revision estimate, and only use this stem when other implants are not suitable. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(5):504–510

During total knee arthroplasty (TKA), a tourniquet is often used intraoperatively. There are proposed benefits of tourniquet use including shorter duration of surgery, improved surgical field visualization and increased cement penetration which may improve implant longevity. However, there are also cited side effects that include increased post-operative pain, slowed recovery, skin bruising, neurovascular injury and quadriceps weakness. Randomized controlled trials have demonstrated no differences in implant longevity, however they are limited by short follow-up and small sample sizes. The objective of the current study was to evaluate the rates of revision surgery among patients undergoing cemented TKA with or without an intraoperative tourniquet and to understand the causes and risk factors for failure. A retrospective cohort study was undertaken of all patients who received a primary, cemented TKA at a high-volume arthroplasty centre from January 1999 to December 2010. Patients who underwent surgery without the use of a tourniquet and those who had a tourniquet inflated for the entirety of the case were included. The causes and timing of revision surgery were recorded and cross referenced with the Canadian Institute of Health Information Discharge Abstract Database to reduce the loss to follow-up. Survivorship analysis was performed with the use of Kaplan-Meier curves to determine overall survival rates at final follow-up. A Cox proportional hazards model was utilized to evaluate independent predictors of revision surgery. Data from 3939 cases of primary cemented TKA were available for analysis. There were 2276 (58%) cases in which a tourniquet was used for the duration of the surgery and 1663 (42%) cases in which a tourniquet was not utilized. Mean time from the primary TKA was 14.7 years (range 0 days - 22.8 years) when censored by death or revision surgery. There were 150 recorded revisions in the entire cohort, with periprosthetic joint infection (n=50) and aseptic loosening (n=41) being the most common causes for revision. The cumulative survival at final follow-up for the tourniquetless group was 93.8% at final follow-up while the cumulative survival at final follow-up for the tourniquet group was 96.9% at final follow-up. Tourniquetless surgery was an independent predictor for all-cause revision with an HR of 1.53 (95% CI 1.1, 2.1, p=0.011). Younger age and male sex were also independent factors for all cause revision. The results of the current study demonstrate higher all-cause revision rates with tourniquetless surgery in a large cohort of patients undergoing primary cemented TKA. The available literature consists of short-term trials and registry data, which have inherent limitations. Potential causes for increased revision rates in the tourniquetless group include reduced cement penetration, increased intraoperative blood loss and longer surgical. The results of the current study should be taken into consideration, alongside the known risks and benefits of tourniquet use, when considering intraoperative tourniquet use in cemented TKA

With an ageing population and an increasing number of primary arthroplasties performed, the revision burden is predicted to increase. The aims of this study were to 1. Determine the revision burden in an academic hospital over a 11-year period; 2. identify the direct hospital cost associated with the delivery of revision service and 3. ascertain factors associated with increased cost. This is an IRB-approved, retrospective, single tertiary referral center, consecutive case series. Using the hospital data warehouse, all patients that underwent revision hip or knee arthroplasty surgery between 2008-2018 were identified. 1632 revisions were identified (1304 patients), consisting of 1061 hip and 571 knee revisions. The majority of revisions were performed for mechanical-related problems and aseptic loosening (n=903; 55.3%); followed by periprosthetic joint infection (n=553; 33.9%) and periprosthetic fractures (176; 10.8%). Cost and length of stay was determined for all patient. The direct in-hospital costs were converted to 2020 inflation-adjusted Canadian dollars. Several patients- (age; gender; HOMR- and ASA-scores; Hemoglobin level) and surgical- (indication for surgery; surgical site) factors were tested for possible associations. The number of revisions increased by 210% in the study period (2008 vs. 2018: 83 vs. 174). Revision indications changed over study period; with prevalence of fracture increasing by 460% (5 in 2008 vs. 23 in 2018) with an accompanying reduction in mechanical-related reasons, whilst revisions for infection remained constant. The mean annual cost over the entire study period was 3.9 MMCAD (range:2.4–5.1 MMCAD). The cost raised 150% over the study period from 2.4 MMCAD in 2008 to 3.6 MMCAD. Revisions for fractured had the greatest length of stay, the highest mean age, HOMR-score, ASA and cost associated with treatment compared to other revision indications (p < 0 .001). Patient factors associated with cost and length of stay included ASA- and HOMR-scores, Charlson-Comorbidity score and age. The revision burden increased 1.5-fold over the years and so has the direct cost of care delivery. The increased cost is primarily related to the prolonged hospital stay and increased surgical cost. For tertiary care units, these findings indicate a need to identify strategies on improving efficiencies whilst improving the quality of patient care (e.g. efficient ways of reducing acute hospital stay) and reducing the raise of the economic burden on a publicly funded health system

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

Aims. Registry studies on modified acetabular polyethylene (PE) liner designs are limited. We investigated the influence of standard and modified PE acetabular liner designs on the revision rate for mechanical complications in primary cementless total hip arthroplasty (THA). Methods. We analyzed 151,096 primary cementless THAs from the German Arthroplasty Registry (EPRD) between November 2012 and November 2020. Cumulative incidence of revision for mechanical complications for standard and four modified PE liners (lipped, offset, angulated/offset, and angulated) was determined using competing risk analysis at one and seven years. Confounders were investigated with a Cox proportional-hazards model. Results. Median follow-up was 868 days (interquartile range 418 to 1,364). The offset liner design reduced the risk of revision (hazard ratio (HR) 0.68 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 0.92)), while the angulated/offset liner increased the risk of revision for mechanical failure (HR 1.81 (95% CI 1.38 to 2.36)). The cumulative incidence of revision was lowest for the offset liner at one and seven years (1.0% (95% CI 0.7 to 1.3) and 1.8% (95% CI 1.0 to 3.0)). No difference was found between standard, lipped, and angulated liner designs. Higher age at index primary THA and an Elixhauser Comorbidity Index greater than 0 increased the revision risk in the first year after surgery. Implantation of a higher proportion of a single design of liner in a hospital reduced revision risk slightly but significantly (p = 0.001). Conclusion. The use of standard acetabular component liners remains a good choice in primary uncemented THA, as most modified liner designs were not associated with a reduced risk of revision for mechanical failure. Offset liner designs were found to be beneficial and angulated/offset liner designs were associated with higher risks of revision. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(7):801–810

Complications such as implant loosening, infection, periprosthetic fracture or instability may lead to revision arthroplasty procedures. There is limited literature comparing single-stage and two-stage revision shoulder arthroplasty. This study aims to compare clinical outcomes and cost benefit between single-stage and two-stage revision procedures. Thirty-one revision procedures (mean age 72+/-7, 15 males and 16 females) performed between 2016 and 2021 were included (27 revision RSA, 2 revision TSA, 2 failed ORIFs). Two-stage procedures were carried out 4-6 weeks apart. Single-stage procedures included debridement, implant removal and washout, followed by re-prep, re-drape and reconstruction with new instrumentations. Clinical parameters including length of stay, VAS, patient satisfaction was recorded preoperatively and at mean 12-months follow up. Cost benefit analysis were performed. Seven revisions were two-stage procedures and 24 were single-stage procedures. There were 5 infections in the two-stage group vs 14 in the single-stage group. We noted two cases of unstable RSA and 8 other causes for single-stage revision. Majority of the revisions were complex procedures requiring significant glenoid and/or humeral allografts and tendon transfers to compensate for soft tissue loss. No custom implants were used in our series. Hospital stay was reduced from 41+/-29 days for 2-stage procedures to 16+/-13 days for single-stage (p<0.05). VAS improved from 9+/-1 to 2+/-4 for two-stage procedures and from 5+/-3 to 1+/-2 for single-stages. The average total cost of hospital and patient was reduced by two-thirds. Patient satisfaction in the single-stage group was 43% which was comparable to the two-stage group. All infections were successfully treated with no recurrence of infection in our cohort of 31 patients. There was no instability postoperatively. 3 patients had postoperative neural symptoms which resolved within 6 months. Single-stage procedures for revision shoulder arthroplasty significantly decrease hospital stay, improve patients’ satisfaction, and reduced surgical costs

Source of the study: University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is effective for patients with isolated compartment osteoarthritis, however the procedure has higher revision rates. Long-term survivorship and accurate characterisation of revision reasons are limited by a lack of long-term data and standardised revision definitions. We aimed to identify survivorship, risk factors and revision reasons in a large UKA cohort with up to 20 years follow-up. Patient, implant and revision details were recorded through clinical and radiological review for 2,137 consecutive patients undergoing primary medial UKA across Auckland, Canterbury, Counties Manukau and Waitematā DHB between 2000 and 2017. Revision reasons were determined from review of clinical, laboratory, and radiological records for each patient using a standardised protocol. To ensure complete follow-up data was cross-referenced with the New Zealand Joint Registry to identify patients undergoing subsequent revision outside the hospitals. Implant survival, revision risk and revision reasons were analysed using Cox proportional-hazards and competing risk analyses. Implant survivorship at 15 years was comparable for cemented fixed-bearing (cemFB; 91%) and uncemented mobile-bearing (uncemMB; 91%), but lower for cemented mobile-bearing (cemMB; 80%) implants. There was higher incidence of aseptic loosening with cemented implants (3–4% vs. 0.4% uncemented, p<0.01), osteoarthritis (OA) progression with cemMB implants (9% vs. 3% cemFB/uncemMB; p<0.05) and bearing dislocations with uncemMB implants (3% vs. 2% cemMB, p=0.02). Compared with the oldest patients (≥75 years), there was a nearly two-fold increase in risk for those aged 55–64 (hazard ratio 1.9; confidence interval 1.1-3.3, p=0.03). No association was found with gender, BMI or ASA. Cemented mobile-bearing implants and younger age were linked to lower implant survivorship. These were associated with disease progression and bearing dislocations. The use of cemented fixed-bearing and uncemented mobile-bearing designs have superior comparable long-term survivorship

Aims. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of depressive and anxiety disorders prior to total hip (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and to assess their impact on the rates of any infection, revision, or reoperation. Methods. Between January 2000 and March 2019, 21,469 primary and revision arthroplasties (10,011 THAs; 11,458 TKAs), which were undertaken in 15,504 patients at a single academic medical centre, were identified from a 27-county linked electronic medical record (EMR) system. Depressive and anxiety disorders were identified by diagnoses in the EMR or by using a natural language processing program with subsequent validation from review of the medical records. Patients with mental health diagnoses other than anxiety or depression were excluded. Results. Depressive and/or anxiety disorders were common before THA and TKA, with a prevalence of 30% in those who underwent primary THA, 33% in those who underwent revision THA, 32% in those who underwent primary TKA, and 35% in those who underwent revision TKA. The presence of depressive or anxiety disorders was associated with a significantly increased risk of any infection (primary THA, hazard ratio (HR) 1.5; revision THA, HR 1.9; primary TKA, HR 1.6; revision TKA, HR 1.8), revision (THA, HR 1.7; TKA, HR 1.6), re-revision (THA, HR 2.0; TKA, HR 1.6), and reoperation (primary THA, HR 1.6; revision THA, HR 2.2; primary TKA, HR 1.4; revision TKA, HR 1.9; p < 0.03 for all). Patients with preoperative depressive and/or anxiety disorders were significantly less likely to report “much better” joint function after primary THA (78% vs 87%) and primary TKA (86% vs 90%) compared with those without these disorders at two years postoperatively (p < 0.001 for all). Conclusion. The presence of depressive or anxiety disorders prior to primary or revision THA and TKA is common, and associated with a significantly higher risk of infection, revision, reoperation, and dissatisfaction. This topic deserves further study, and surgeons may consider mental health optimization to be of similar importance to preoperative variables such as diabetic control, prior to arthroplasty. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(5):526–533

External validation of machine learning predictive models is achieved through evaluation of model performance on different groups of patients than were used for algorithm development. This important step is uncommonly performed, inhibiting clinical translation of newly developed models. Recently, machine learning was used to develop a tool that can quantify revision risk for a patient undergoing primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (https://swastvedt.shinyapps.io/calculator_rev/). The source of data included nearly 25,000 patients with primary ACL reconstruction recorded in the Norwegian Knee Ligament Register (NKLR). The result was a well-calibrated tool capable of predicting revision risk one, two, and five years after primary ACL reconstruction with moderate accuracy. The purpose of this study was to determine the external validity of the NKLR model by assessing algorithm performance when applied to patients from the Danish Knee Ligament Registry (DKLR). The primary outcome measure of the NKLR model was probability of revision ACL reconstruction within 1, 2, and/or 5 years. For the index study, 24 total predictor variables in the NKLR were included and the models eliminated variables which did not significantly improve prediction ability - without sacrificing accuracy. The result was a well calibrated algorithm developed using the Cox Lasso model that only required five variables (out of the original 24) for outcome prediction. For this external validation study, all DKLR patients with complete data for the five variables required for NKLR prediction were included. The five variables were: graft choice, femur fixation device, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) Quality of Life subscale score at surgery, years from injury to surgery, and age at surgery. Predicted revision probabilities were calculated for all DKLR patients. The model performance was assessed using the same metrics as the NKLR study: concordance and calibration. In total, 10,922 DKLR patients were included for analysis. Average follow-up time or time-to-revision was 8.4 (±4.3) years and overall revision rate was 6.9%. Surgical technique trends (i.e., graft choice and fixation devices) and injury characteristics (i.e., concomitant meniscus and cartilage pathology) were dissimilar between registries. The model produced similar concordance when applied to the DKLR population compared to the original NKLR test data (DKLR: 0.68; NKLR: 0.68-0.69). Calibration was poorer for the DKLR population at one and five years post primary surgery but similar to the NKLR at two years. The NKLR machine learning algorithm demonstrated similar performance when applied to patients from the DKLR, suggesting that it is valid for application outside of the initial patient population. This represents the first machine learning model for predicting revision ACL reconstruction that has been externally validated. Clinicians can use this in-clinic calculator to estimate revision risk at a patient specific level when discussing outcome expectations pre-operatively. While encouraging, it should be noted that the performance of the model on patients undergoing ACL reconstruction outside of Scandinavia remains unknown

Aim. Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) aggravates an already difficult treatment of periprosthetic joint infections (PJI). The prevalence of drug-resistant pathogens varies across countries and increases over time. Regular monitoring of bacteriological analyses should be performed. Due to many factors influencing the AMR, the correct choice of antimicrobial management remains arguable. The primary purpose of this retrospective study was to identify and compare causative bacteria and to compare the incidence of antibiotic resistance between the septic revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and septic revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). Method. A review of all revision TKAs and revision THAs, undertaken between 2007 and 2020 in a tertiary referral centre, was performed. Included were cases meeting the consensus criteria for PJI, in which an organism has been identified. There were no major differences in tissue sampling between revision TKAs and revision THAs over time. Results. A total of 228 bacterial strains, isolated after revision TKA and THA, were analysed for their resistance to 20 different antibiotics. There was a statistically significant higher occurrence of Gram-negative bacteria (p=0.002) and Enterococcus species (p=0.026) identified after revision THAs compared to TKA. The comparison of antibiotic resistance between revision TKAs and revision THAs was statistically significant in 9 of 20 analysed antibiotics. Pathogens isolated after revision THA were much more resistant compared to pathogens isolated after revision TKA. Resistance in revision THAs was significantly higher to oxacillin (p=0.03), ciprofloxacin (p<0.001), levofloxacin (p<0.001), moxifloxacin (p=0.005), clindamycin (p<0.001), co-trimoxazole (p<0.001), imipenem (p=0.01), rifampicin (p=0.005) and tetracycline (p=0.009). There was no significantly higher resistance of pathogens isolated after revision TKAs detected. No statistically significant difference in antibiotic resistance of Gram-negative bacteria between revision TKA and revision THA was observed. Conclusions. The occurrence and the resistance of bacteria to antibiotics differs significantly between revision TKAs and revision THAs. This has implications on of the choice of empirical antibiotic in revision surgery as well as prophylactic antibiotic in primary surgery, depending on the joint that is to be replaced

Ceramic bearing fractures are rare events, but mandate revision and implantation of new bearings. Revisions using metal heads have been reported to lead to gross volumetric head wear (due to abrasive retained ceramic micro-debris), cobalt toxicity, multi-organ failure and death. Such complications are widely published (50+ reports), yet we know that patients continue to be put at risk. Using data from the NJR and AOANJRR, this study seeks to compare the risk of re-revision and death by revision bearing combination following a ceramic bearing fracture. Data were extracted from the NJR and AOANJRR, identifying revisions for ceramic bearing fracture. Subsequent outcomes of survival, re-revision and death were compared between revision bearing combinations (ceramic-on-ceramic, ceramic-on-polyethylene, and metal-on-polyethylene). 366 cases were available for analysis from the NJR dataset (MoP=34, CoP=112, CoC=221) and 174 from the AOANJRR dataset (MoP=17, CoP=44, CoC=113). The overall incidence rate of adverse outcome (revision or death) was 0.65 for metal heads and 0.23 for ceramic head articulations (p=0.0012) across the whole time period (NJR). Kaplan-Meir survival estimates demonstrate an increased risk of both re-revision and death where a metal head has been used vs a ceramic head following revision for ceramic fracture. There are few decisions in arthroplasty surgery that can lead to serious harm or death for our patients, but revision using a metal head following ceramic bearing fracture is one of them. This study enhances the signal of what is already known but previously only reported as inherently low-level evidence (case reports and small series) due to event rarity. Use of a metal head in revision for ceramic fracture represents an avoidable patient safety issue, which revision guidelines should seek to address

Aims. Total hip arthroplasties (THAs) are performed by surgeons at various stages in training with varying levels of supervision, but we do not know if this is safe practice with comparable outcomes to consultant-performed THA. Our aim was to examine the association between surgeon grade, the senior supervision of trainees, and the risk of revision following THA. Methods. We performed an observational study using National Joint Registry (NJR) data. We included adult patients who underwent primary THA for osteoarthritis, recorded in the NJR between 2003 and 2016. Exposures were operating surgeon grade (consultant or trainee) and whether or not trainees were directly supervised by a scrubbed consultant. Outcomes were all-cause revision and the indication for revision up to ten years. We used methods of survival analysis, adjusted for patient, operation, and healthcare setting factors. Results. We included 603,474 THAs, of which 58,137 (9.6%) procedures were performed by a trainee. There was no association between surgeon grade and all-cause revision up to ten years (crude hazard ratio (HR) 1.00 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94 to 1.07); p = 0.966), a finding which persisted with adjusted analysis. Fully adjusted analysis demonstrated an association between trainees operating without scrubbed consultant supervision and an increased risk of all-cause revision (HR 1.10 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.21); p = 0.045). There was an association between trainee-performed THA and revision for instability (HR 1.14 (95% CI 1.01 to 1.30); p = 0.039). However, this was not observed in adjusted models, or when trainees were supervised by a scrubbed consultant. Conclusion. Within the current training system in England and Wales, appropriately supervised trainees achieve comparable THA survival to consultants. Trainees who are supervised by a scrubbed consultant achieve superior outcomes compared to trainees who are not supervised by a scrubbed consultant, particularly in terms of revision for instability. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(3):341–351

Background. The literature on the outcome of revision total ankle arthroplasty (TAA) remains limited. We aim to report the clinical and radiological outcomes of revision TAA at a high-volume centre in the UK. Methods. Retrospective review of 28 patients that underwent 29 revision TAA procedures using INBONE II prosthesis. Demographic, radiological, and patient reported outcome measures data were analysed. Results. The mean (range) duration from primary TAA to revision was 87.5 (16–223) months. The main indication for the revision was aseptic loosening of the primary TAA (82.8%). Additional procedures were required in 75.9% of patients. At mean (range) follow-up of 40 (24- 60) months, the infection, re-operation, and implant survival rates were 6.9%, 6.9% and 96.5% respectively. A significant postoperative improvement in the component alignment radiographic measures was observed. Osteolysis, subsidence, loosening and heterotopic ossification rates were comparable to other reports and did not influence the clinical outcome. A significant improvement was observed in the MOXFQ (all domains) and the EQ-5D (three domains) at 24 months postoperatively. Conclusions. Revision TAA using INBONE II was associated with good short-term survival and improvement in the postoperative scores at 2 years. Maintenance of the postoperatively improved alignment was documented at follow up. The relatively high survival rate in this series supports the notion that revision TAA is a satisfactory option for failed primary TAA

Aims. The duration of systemic antibiotic treatment following first-stage revision surgery for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after total hip arthroplasty (THA) is contentious. Our philosophy is to perform an aggressive debridement, and to use a high local concentration of targeted antibiotics in cement beads and systemic prophylactic antibiotics alone. The aim of this study was to assess the success of this philosophy in the management of PJI of the hip using our two-stage protocol. Methods. The study involved a retrospective review of our prospectively collected database from which we identified all patients who underwent an intended two-stage revision for PJI of the hip. All patients had a diagnosis of PJI according to the major criteria of the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) 2013, a minimum five-year follow-up, and were assessed using the MSIS working group outcome-reporting tool. The outcomes were grouped into ‘successful’ or ‘unsuccessful’. Results. A total of 299 two-stage revision THAs in 289 patients met the inclusion criteria, of whom 258 (86%) proceeded to second-stage surgery. Their mean age was 68.1 years (28 to 92). The median follow-up was 10.7 years (interquartile range (IQR) 6.3 to 15.0). A 91% success rate was seen in those patients who underwent reimplantation, decreasing to 86% when including those who did not proceed to reimplantation. The median duration of postoperative systemic antibiotics following the first stage was five days (IQR 5 to 9). There was no significant difference in outcome between those patients who were treated with antibiotics for ≤ 48 hours (p = 0.961) or ≤ five days (p = 0.376) compared with those who were treated with longer courses. Greater success rates were seen for Gram-positive PJIs (87%) than for Gram-negative (84%) and mixed-Gram PJIs (72%; p = 0.098). Conclusion. Aggressive surgical debridement with a high local concentration of targeted antibiotics at the time of first-stage revision surgery for PJI of the hip, without prolonged systemic antibiotics, provides a high rate of success, responsible antibiotic stewardship, and reduced hospital costs. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(5):511–517

There are many reasons why a total knee replacement (TKR) may fail and qualify for revision. Successful revision surgery depends as much on accurate assessment of the problem TKR as it does on revision implant design and surgical technique. Specific modes of failure require specific surgical solutions. Causes of failure are often presented as a list or catalogue, without a system or process for making a decision. In addition, strict definitions and consensus on modes of failure are lacking in published series and registry data. How we approach the problem TKR is an essential but neglected aspect of understanding knee replacement surgery. It must be carried out systematically, comprehensively and efficiently. Eight modes of failure are described: 1) sepsis; 2) extensor discontinuity; 3) stiffness; 4) tibial- femoral instability; 5) patellar tracking; 6) aseptic loosening and osteolysis; 7) periprosthetic fracture and 8) component breakage. A ninth ‘category’, unexplained pain is an indication for further investigation but not surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B(11 Suppl A):105–11

Aims. The aim of this study was to conduct a cross-sectional, observational cohort study of patients presenting for revision of a total hip, or total or unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, to understand current routes to revision surgery and explore differences in symptoms, healthcare use, reason for revision, and the revision surgery (surgical time, components, length of stay) between patients having regular follow-up and those without. Methods. Data were collected from participants and medical records for the 12 months prior to revision. Patients with previous revision, metal-on-metal articulations, or hip hemiarthroplasty were excluded. Participants were retrospectively classified as ‘Planned’ or ‘Unplanned’ revision. Multilevel regression and propensity score matching were used to compare the two groups. Results. Data were analyzed from 568 patients, recruited in 38 UK secondary care sites between October 2017 and October 2018 (43.5% male; mean (SD) age 71.86 years (9.93); 305 hips, 263 knees). No significant inclusion differences were identified between the two groups. For hip revision, time to revision > ten years (odds ratio (OR) 3.804, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.353 to 10.694), p = 0.011), periprosthetic fracture (OR 20.309, 95% CI (4.574 to 90.179), p < 0.001), and dislocation (OR 12.953, 95% CI (4.014 to 41.794), p < 0.001), were associated with unplanned revision. For knee, there were no associations with route to revision. Revision after ten years was more likely for those who were younger at primary surgery, regardless of route to revision. No significant differences in cost outcomes, length of surgery time, and access to a health professional in the year prior to revision were found between the two groups. When periprosthetic fractures, dislocations, and infections were excluded, healthcare use was significantly higher in the unplanned revision group. Conclusion. Differences between characteristics for patients presenting for planned and unplanned revision are minimal. Although there was greater healthcare use in those having unplanned revision, it appears unlikely that routine orthopaedic review would have detected many of these issues. It may be safe to disinvest in standard follow-up provided there is rapid access to orthopaedic review. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(1):59–67

Aims. Cement-in-cement revision of the femoral component represents a widely practised technique for a variety of indications in revision total hip arthroplasty. In this study, we compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of two polished tapered femoral components. Methods. From our prospectively collated database, we identified all patients undergoing cement-in-cement revision from January 2005 to January 2013 who had a minimum of two years' follow-up. All cases were performed by the senior author using either an Exeter short revision stem or the C-Stem AMT high offset No. 1 prosthesis. Patients were followed-up annually with clinical and radiological assessment. Results. A total of 97 patients matched the inclusion criteria (50 Exeter and 47 C-Stem AMT components). There were no significant differences between the patient demographic data in either group. Mean follow-up was 9.7 years. A significant improvement in Oxford Hip Score (OHS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and 12-item Short-Form Survey (SF-12) scores was observed in both cohorts. Leg lengths were significantly shorter in the Exeter group, with a mean of -4 mm in this cohort compared with 0 mm in the C-Stem AMT group. One patient in the Exeter group had early evidence of radiological loosening. In total, 16 patients (15%) underwent further revision of the femoral component (seven in the C-Stem AMT group and nine in the Exeter group). No femoral components were revised for aseptic loosening. There were two cases of femoral component fracture in the Exeter group. Conclusion. Our series shows promising mid-term outcomes for the cement-in-cement revision technique using either the Exeter or C-Stem AMT components. These results demonstrate that cement-in-cement revision using a double or triple taper-slip design is a safe and reliable technique when used for the correct indications. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(7):1215–1221

The custom triflange is a patient-specific implant for the treatment of severe bone loss in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). Through a process of three-dimensional modelling and prototyping, a hydroxyapatite-coated component is created for acetabular reconstruction. There are seven level IV studies describing the clinical results of triflange components. The most common complications include dislocation and infection, although the rates of implant removal are low. Clinical results are promising given the challenging problem. We describe the design, manufacture and implantation process and review the clinical results, contrasting them to other methods of acetabular reconstruction in revision THA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B(1 Suppl A):68–72

Aims. It is important to understand the rate of complications associated with the increasing burden of revision shoulder arthroplasty. Currently, this has not been well quantified. This review aims to address that deficiency with a focus on complication and reoperation rates, shoulder outcome scores, and comparison of anatomical and reverse prostheses when used in revision surgery. Methods. A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) systematic review was performed to identify clinical data for patients undergoing revision shoulder arthroplasty. Data were extracted from the literature and pooled for analysis. Complication and reoperation rates were analyzed using a meta-analysis of proportion, and continuous variables underwent comparative subgroup analysis. Results. A total of 112 studies (5,379 shoulders) were eligible for inclusion, although complete clinical data was not ubiquitous. Indications for revision included component loosening 20% (601/3,041), instability 19% (577/3,041), rotator cuff failure 17% (528/3,041), and infection 16% (490/3,041). Intraoperative complication and postoperative complication and reoperation rates were 8% (230/2,915), 22% (825/3,843), and 13% (584/3,843) respectively. Intraoperative and postoperative complications included iatrogenic humeral fractures (91/230, 40%) and instability (215/825, 26%). Revision to reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA), rather than revision to anatomical TSA from any index prosthesis, resulted in lower complication rates and superior Constant scores, although there was no difference in American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores. Conclusion. Satisfactory improvement in patient-reported outcome measures are reported following revision shoulder arthroplasty; however, revision surgery is associated with high complication rates and better outcomes may be evident following revision to reverse TSA. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(8):618–630

Abstract. Objective. Short-stem total hip arthroplasty (THA) aims to preserve the proximal bone stock for future revisions, so that the first revision should resemble a primary intervention rather than a revision. This study aimed to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes in revision THA after failed short stem versus after failed conventional stem THA. Methods. This study included forty-five patients with revision THA divided into three groups (15 each); group A: revision after short stem, group B: revision after conventional cementless stem and group C revision after conventional cemented stem. The studied groups were compared regarding 31 variables including demographic data, details of the primary and revision procedures, postoperative radiological subsidence, hospital stay, time for full weight bearing (FWB), preoperative and postoperative clinical scores. Results. Early stem subsidence (40%) was the main indication of revision in group A compared to peri-prosthetic femoral fractures (PFFs) (73.3%) and aseptic loosening (53.3%) in group B and C respectively (P=0.021). The mean time to revision was significantly shorter in group A (15 months) compared to 95.33 and 189.40 months in group B and C respectively. (P=0.005). Sixty % (9 patients) in group A were revised in the first year. The mean operative time, blood loss, postoperative blood transfusion and hospital stay were significantly lower in group A compared to group B and C (P<0.001, <0.001, 0.002 and 0.001 respectively). Revisions in group A were performed using either short stems (13.3%) or conventional stems (86.7%) whilst 80% of patients needed long stems and 20% of patients needed conventional stems in group B and C (P<0.001). The mean postoperative Harris Hip Score (HHS) at the latest follow up was 87.07, 87.53 and 85.47 in group A, B and C respectively. All PFFS had excellent results according to Beal's and Tower's criteria; all fractures healed and the implants were stable. Conclusion. The most common cause of failure of short stems is early stem subsidence. Short stem THA has specific indications and patient selection is very crucial. Preoperative templating for short stems and a detailed analysis of the individual patient anatomy in anteroposterior and lateral views are mandatory to predict the correct implant size more accurately. The use of intraoperative imaging can verify the sizing, implant position, and sufficient contact with the lateral cortex. Revision of short stem THA resembled the primary THA. If a standard implant can be used in a surgical revision instead of a longer revision stem, this can be considered as an advantage for the hip arthroplasty treatment concept. However, this only applies if the longevity of the first treatment with a short stem is comparable with that of a standard stem. Declaration of Interest. (b) declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research reported:I declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research project

Revision options for a failed Total ankle arthroplasty (TAA) have historically been limited to complex hindfoot fusions, bespoke ankle arthroplasty revision or amputation. The patient outcomes of these procedures has been felt to be poor. The introduction of the INBONE-II and INVISION ankle arthroplasty revision systems has created a range of revision arthroplasty options, with the possibility of improved patient outcomes. We aim to report on the early results of 20 sequential revision TAA. All patients undergoing revision TAA with INBONE-II or INVISION had prospective collection of pre-operative and post-operative MOx-FQ and EQ-5D scores. Between September 2013 and June 2019 23 patients underwent revision TAA with mean time from implantation of 35 months (6 to 74). Those with greater than 1 year follow-up had scores included. Other outcomes included radiographic assessment for loosening and revision. 13 patients had INBONE-II and 10 INVISION. None required revision at the time of review. Pre-operative MOx-FQ averaged 40.6 (13.4 pain, 21 walking, 6.2 social). Post-operative MOx-FQ averaged 17.4 (6.2 pain, 8.1 walking, 3.1 social). Average EQ-5D improved from 8 to 6.6 and average EQ-VAS from 60 to 80. On radiograph review one patient had radiolucent lines around their INBONE-II stem evident at 1 year. This had not progressed by 4 years total follow-up. Another patient had uncoupling of part of the stem of her INBONE-II but had not required revision. This was attributed to surgeon error. Revision TAA using the INBONE-II and INVISION systems shows promising early results relating to loosening and revision and good maintained improvement in MOx-FQ and EQ-5D scores. This provides further evidence that patients with a failed TAA can safely have revision rather than having to commit to complex ankle/hindfoot fusion. This provides surgeons with flexibility particularly in those patients with other hindfoot arthritis or arthrodesis

Abstract. Introduction. A revision knee replacement (rKR) network model has been introduced in the UK to improve clinical outcomes for patients and reduce healthcare costs. However, the current practice of different types of surgical unit is not well understood. The aim of this study was to answer: “How complex are rKR cases at a Major Revision Centre (MRC)?”. Methodology. Retrospective cohort study at the Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre, Oxford from 2015 - 2018. Case complexity was classified using the Revision Knee Complexity Classification (RKCC). Referral source, technical details of surgery and hospital admission impact were recorded. Results. 688 rKR procedures (380 rKR, 308 re-revision KR) were identified over the study period. 170 rKR (24.7%) were unplanned admissions requiring surgery, whilst the remaining cases were elective. 288/688 rKR (41.9%) were external referrals, where surgical complexity was rated ‘less complex’ (96 rKR, 33.3%), ‘more complex’ (92 rKR, 31.9%) and ‘most complex’ (100 rKR, 34.7%). 140/288 (48.6%) of these cases had one or more rKR prior to referral. Length of stay (LOS) was greater for more complex cases (R1 median 5 days [interquartile range 3–9], R2 median 9 days [IQR 5–15], R3 median 11 days [IQR 7–19]). Conclusion. rKR complexity at the MRC followed a ‘rule of thirds’. Among external referrals, nearly half of patients had a previous rKR prior to referral. More complex cases required longer hospital admissions

Rotator cuff repair has excellent clinical outcomes but continues to be a challenge when it comes to large and massive tears as well as revision procedures. Reported symptomatic retear rates are still too high to be acceptable. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a combination of augmentation techniques consisting of microfractures of the greater tuberosity, extracellular matrix (ECM) patch graft and subsequent platelet concentrate (PC) subacromial injections in revision rotator cuff repair. The study was designed as a retrospective comparative study on prospectively collected data from a consecutive cohort of patients. All patients who underwent arthroscopic revision rotator cuff repair for symptomatic failure of previous posterosuperior rotator cuff repair were considered eligible for the study. Symptomatic failure had been diagnosed according to clinical examination and confirmed by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Structural integrity had been assessed on MRI and classified according to Sugaya classification. Only patients affected by stage IV-V were considered eligible. Tear reparability was confirmed during arthroscopy. Only patients with a minimum 2 years follow-up were included. Patients were divided in two groups. In group 1 (control group) a standard arthroscopic revision and microfractures of the greater tuberosity were performed; in group 2 (experimental group), microfractures of the greater tuberosity and a ECM patch graft were used to enhance tendon repair, followed by postoperative PC injections. Minimum follow-up was 12 months. Primary outcome was the Constant-Murley score (CMS) normalized for age and gender. Subjective outcome was assessed with the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score in its short version (Quick-DASH). Tendon integrity was assessed with MRI at 6 months after surgery. Comparison between groups for all discrete variables at baseline and at follow-up was carried out with the Student's t-test for normally distributed data, otherwise Mann-Whitney U-test was used. Within-group differences (baseline vs follow-up) for discrete variables were analyzed by paired t-test, or by Wilcoxon signed-rank test in case of data with non-normal distribution. Differences for categorical variables were assessed by chi-squared test. Significance was considered for p values < 0.05. Forty patients were included in the study (20 patients for each group). The mean follow-up was 13 ± 1.6 months. No patients were lost at the follow up. Comparison between groups did not show significant differences for baseline characteristics. At follow-up, mean CMS was 80.7 ± 16.6 points in group 1 and 91.5 ± 11.5 points in group 2 (p= 0.022). Mean DASH score was 28.6 ± 21.6 points in group 1 and 20.1 ± 17.4 points in group 2 (p= 0.178). Post-operative MRI showed 6 healed shoulders in Group 1 and 16 healed shoulders in Group 2 (p<0.004). No postoperative complications were reported in both groups. The combination of microfractures of the greater tuberosity, ECM patch graft, and subsequent PC subacromial injections is an effective strategy in improving tendon healing rate

Aims. In the last decade, perioperative advancements have expanded the use of outpatient primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Despite this, there remains limited data on expedited discharge after revision TKA. This study compared 30-day readmissions and reoperations in patients undergoing revision TKA with a hospital stay greater or less than 24 hours. The authors hypothesized that expedited discharge in select patients would not be associated with increased 30-day readmissions and reoperations. Methods. Aseptic revision TKAs in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database were reviewed from 2013 to 2020. TKAs were stratified by length of hospital stay (greater or less than 24 hours). Patient demographic details, medical comorbidities, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, operating time, components revised, 30-day readmissions, and reoperations were compared. Multivariate analysis evaluated predictors of discharge prior to 24 hours, 30-day readmission, and reoperation. Results. Of 21,610 aseptic revision TKAs evaluated, 530 were discharged within 24 hours. Short-stay patients were younger (63.1 years (49 to 78) vs 65.1 years (18 to 94)), with lower BMI (32.3 kg/m. 2. (17 to 47) vs 33.6 kg/m. 2. (19 to 54) and lower ASA grades. Diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypertension, and cancer were all associated with a hospital stay over 24 hours. Single component revisions (56.8% (n = 301) vs 32.4% (n = 6,823)), and shorter mean operating time (89.7 minutes (25 to 275) vs 130.2 minutes (30 to 517)) were associated with accelerated discharge. Accelerated discharge was not associated with 30-day readmission and reoperation. Conclusion. Accelerated discharge after revision TKA did not increase short-term complications, readmissions, or reoperations. Further efforts to decrease hospital stays in this setting should be evaluated. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(12):1323–1328

Aims. Corticosteroid injections are often used to manage glenohumeral arthritis in patients who may be candidates for future total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) or reverse shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA). In the conservative management of these patients, corticosteroid injections are often provided for symptomatic relief. The purpose of this study was to determine if the timing of corticosteroid injections prior to TSA or rTSA is associated with changes in rates of revision and periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following these procedures. Methods. Data were collected from a national insurance database from January 2006 to December 2017. Patients who underwent shoulder corticosteroid injection within one year prior to ipsilateral TSA or rTSA were identified and stratified into the following cohorts: < three months, three to six months, six to nine months, and nine to 12 months from time of corticosteroid injection to TSA or rTSA. A control cohort with no corticosteroid injection within one year prior to TSA or rTSA was used for comparison. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to determine the association between specific time intervals and outcomes. Results. In total, 4,252 patients were included in this study. Among those, 1,632 patients (38.4%) received corticosteroid injection(s) within one year prior to TSA or rTSA and 2,620 patients (61.6%) did not. On multivariate analysis, patients who received corticosteroid injection < three months prior to TSA or rTSA were at significantly increased risk for revision (odds ratio (OR) 2.61 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.77 to 3.28); p < 0.001) when compared with the control cohort. However, there was no significant increase in revision risk for all other timing interval cohorts. Notably, Charlson Comorbidity Index ≥ 3 was a significant independent risk factor for all-cause revision (OR 4.00 (95% CI 1.40 to 8.92); p = 0.036). Conclusion. There is a time-dependent relationship between the preoperative timing of corticosteroid injection and the incidence of all-cause revision surgery following TSA or rTSA. This analysis suggests that an interval of at least three months should be maintained between corticosteroid injection and TSA or rTSA to minimize risks of subsequent revision surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(5):620–626

Aims. Despite multiple trials and case series on hip hemiarthroplasty designs, guidance is still lacking on which implant to use. One particularly deficient area is long-term outcomes. We present over 1,000 consecutive cemented Thompson’s hemiarthroplasties over a ten-year period, recording all accessible patient and implant outcomes. Methods. Patient identifiers for a consecutive cohort treated between 1 January 2003 and 31 December 2011 were linked to radiographs, surgical notes, clinic letters, and mortality data from a national dataset. This allowed charting of their postoperative course, complications, readmissions, returns to theatre, revisions, and deaths. We also identified all postoperative attendances at the Emergency and Outpatient Departments, and recorded any subsequent skeletal injuries. Results. In total, 1,312 Thompson’s hemiarthroplasties were analyzed (mean age at surgery 82.8 years); 125 complications were recorded, necessitating 82 returns to theatre. These included 14 patients undergoing aspiration or manipulation under anaesthesia, 68 reoperations (5.2%) for debridement and implant retention (n = 12), haematoma evacuation (n = 2), open reduction for dislocation (n = 1), fixation of periprosthetic fracture (n = 5), and 48 revised stems (3.7%), for infection (n = 13), dislocation (n = 12), aseptic loosening (n = 9), persistent pain (n = 6), periprosthetic fracture (n = 4), acetabular erosion (n = 3), and metastatic bone disease (n = 1). Their status at ten years is summarized as follows: 1,180 (89.9%) dead without revision, 34 (2.6%) dead having had revision, 84 (6.6%) alive with the stem unrevised, and 14 (1.1%) alive having had revision. Cumulative implant survivorship was 90.3% at ten years; patient survivorship was 7.4%. Conclusion. The Thompson’s stem demonstrates very low rates of complications requiring reoperation and revision, up to ten years after the index procedure. Fewer than one in ten patients live for ten years after fracture. This study supports the use of a cemented Thompson’s implant as a cost-effective option for frail hip fracture patients. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(9):710–715

Aims. Revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) is a technically challenging and costly procedure. It is well-documented that primary TKA (pTKA) have better survivorship than rTKA; however, we were unable to identify any studies explicitly investigating previous rTKA as a risk factor for failure following rTKA. The purpose of this study is to compare the outcomes following rTKA between patients undergoing index rTKA and those who had been previously revised. Methods. This retrospective, observational study reviewed patients who underwent unilateral, aseptic rTKA at an academic orthopaedic speciality hospital between June 2011 and April 2020 with > one-year of follow-up. Patients were dichotomized based on whether this was their first revision procedure or not. Patient demographics, surgical factors, postoperative outcomes, and re-revision rates were compared between the groups. Results. A total of 663 cases were identified (486 index rTKAs and 177 multiply revised TKAs). There were no differences in demographics, rTKA type, or indication for revision. Multiply revised patients had significantly longer rTKA operative times (p < 0.001), and were more likely to be discharged to an acute rehabilitation centre (6.2% vs 4.5%) or skilled nursing facility (29.9% vs 17.5%; p = 0.003). Patients who had been multiply revised were also significantly more likely to have subsequent reoperation (18.1% vs 9.5%; p = 0.004) and re-revision (27.1% vs 18.1%; p = 0.013). The number of previous revisions did not correlate with the number of subsequent reoperations (r = 0.038; p = 0.670) or re-revisions (r = −0.102; p = 0.251). Conclusion. Multiply revised TKA had worse outcomes, with higher rates of facility discharge, longer operative times, and greater reoperation and re-revision rates compared to index rTKA. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(5):393–398

Recent registry data from around the world has strongly suggested that using cemented hip hemiarthroplasty has lower revision rates compared to cementless hip hemiarthroplasty for acute femoral neck hip fractures. The adoption of using cemented hemiarthroplasty for hip fracture has been slow as many surgeons continue to use uncemented stems. One of the reasons is that surgeons feel more comfortable with uncemented hemiarthroplasty as they have used it routinely. The purpose of this study is to compare the difference in revision rates of cemented and cementless hemiarthroplasty and stratify the risk by surgeon experience. By using a surgeons annual volume of Total Hip Replacements performed as an indicator for surgeon experience. The Canadian Joint Replacement Registry Database was used to collect and compare the outcomes to report on the revision rates based on surgeon volume. This is a large Canadian Registry Study where 68447 patients were identified for having a hip hemiarthroplasty from 2012-2020. This is a retrospective cohort study, identifying patients that had cementless or cemented hip hemiarthroplasty. The surgeons who performed the procedures were linked to the procedure Total Hip Replacement. Individuals were categorized as experienced hip surgeons or not based on whether they performed 50 hip replacements a year. Identifying high volume surgeon (>50 cases/year) and low volume (<50 cases/year) surgeons. Hazard ratios adjusted for age and sex were performed for risk of revision over this 8-year span. A p-value <0.05 was deemed significant. For high volume surgeons, cementless fixation had a higher revision risk than cemented fixation, HR 1.29 (1.05-1.56), p=0.017. This pattern was similar for low volume surgeons, with cementless fixation having a higher revision risk than cemented fixation, HR 1.37 (1.11-1.70) p=0.004 We could not detect a difference in revision risk for cemented fixation between low volume and high volume surgeons; at 0-1.5 years the HR was 0.96 (0.72-1.28) p=0.786, and at 1.5+ years the HR was 1.61 (0.83-3.11) p=0.159. Similarly, we could not detect a difference in revision risk for cementless fixation between low volume and high volume surgeons, HR 1.11 (0.96-1.29) p=0.161. Using large registry data, cemented hip hemiarthroplasty has a significant lower revision rate than the use of cementless stems even when surgeons are stratified to high and low volume. Low volume surgeons who use uncemented prostheses have the highest rate of revision. The low volume hip surgeon who cements has a lower revision rate than the high volume cementless surgeon. The results of this study should help to guide surgeons that no matter the level of experience, using a cemented hip hemiarthroplasty for acute femoral neck fracture is the safest option. That high volume surgeons who perform cementless hemiarthroplasty are not immune to having revisions due to their technique. Increased training and education should be offered to surgeons to improve comfort when using this technique

Recent registry data from around the world has strongly suggested that using cemented hip hemiarthroplasty has lower revision rates compared to cementless hip hemiarthroplasty for acute femoral neck hip fractures. The adoption of using cemented hemiarthroplasty for hip fracture has been slow as many surgeons continue to use uncemented stems. One of the reasons is that surgeons feel more comfortable with uncemented hemiarthroplasty as they have used it routinely. The purpose of this study is to compare the difference in revision rates of cemented and cementless hemiarthroplasty and stratify the risk by surgeon experience. By using a surgeons annual volume of Total Hip Replacements performed as an indicator for surgeon experience. The Canadian Joint Replacement Registry Database was used to collect and compare the outcomes to report on the revision rates based on surgeon volume. This is a large Canadian Registry Study where 68447 patients were identified for having a hip hemiarthroplasty from 2012-2020. This is a retrospective cohort study, identifying patients that had cementless or cemented hip hemiarthroplasty. The surgeons who performed the procedures were linked to the procedure Total Hip Replacement. Individuals were categorized as experienced hip surgeons or not based on whether they performed 50 hip replacements a year. Identifying high volume surgeon (>50 cases/year) and low volume (<50 cases/year) surgeons. Hazard ratios adjusted for age and sex were performed for risk of revision over this 8-year span. A p-value <0.05 was deemed significant. For high volume surgeons, cementless fixation had a higher revision risk than cemented fixation, HR 1.29 (1.05-1.56), p=0.017. This pattern was similar for low volume surgeons, with cementless fixation having a higher revision risk than cemented fixation, HR 1.37 (1.11-1.70) p=0.004 We could not detect a difference in revision risk for cemented fixation between low volume and high volume surgeons; at 0-1.5 years the HR was 0.96 (0.72-1.28) p=0.786, and at 1.5+ years the HR was 1.61 (0.83-3.11) p=0.159. Similarly, we could not detect a difference in revision risk for cementless fixation between low volume and high volume surgeons, HR 1.11 (0.96-1.29) p=0.161. Using large registry data, cemented hip hemiarthroplasty has a significant lower revision rate than the use of cementless stems even when surgeons are stratified to high and low volume. Low volume surgeons who use uncemented prostheses have the highest rate of revision. The low volume hip surgeon who cements has a lower revision rate than the high volume cementless surgeon. The results of this study should help to guide surgeons that no matter the level of experience, using a cemented hip hemiarthroplasty for acute femoral neck fracture is the safest option. That high volume surgeons who perform cementless hemiarthroplasty are not immune to having revisions due to their technique. Increased training and education should be offered to surgeons to improve comfort when using this technique

Cement-in-cement femoral revision is a proven technique in revision total hip arthroplasty, with excellent results when using standard sized Exeter stems. The Exeter 44/00 125 mm short revision stem was introduced in 2004 to facilitate cement-in-cement revision. The stem is 25mm shorter and has a slimmer body to allow greater flexibility to adjust depth of insertion and version of the stem. However, it is not known if this change in stem length and size effects its longer term performance. We therefore reviewed the clinical outcome and survival of the Exeter 44/00 short stem used for cement-in-cement revision in our unit, with a minimum of 5 years follow up. 166 cases were performed between 2004 and 2010. 103 hips were available for 5 year clinical and radiological follow up, with 91 hips surviving to final review in 2017. At 5 years, 43 hips had died, 13 were revised and 7 were too frail to attend clinical review. The fate of all 166 hips were known and included in the survival analysis. Median clinical scores improved significantly. Sixteen hips required re-revision (infection 6, loose cup 3, periprosthetic fracture 3, instability 2, stem fracture with chronic infection 1 and pain 1). Kaplan-meier survival analysis revealed 100% survival for aseptic loosening, 96.8% survival for stem failure and 88.9% survival for all causes. This is the largest series with the longest follow up of the Exeter 44/00 short revision stem. The stem performs equally well as standard Exeter stems with regards to aseptic loosening. The single stem fracture occurred secondary to bone loss in chronic infection, highlighting the importance of providing adequate proximal support for the stem. Periprosthetic fracture occurred in 2.4% of this series of revision cases. Larger registry-based studies may provide additional information on the performance of this stem

Background. A few patients undergoing a total hip replacement need a subsequent revision of the cup. In some of these cases, the treating surgeon may be confronted with Unexpected Positive Intraoperative Cultures (UPIC). The exact incidence of this finding is unclear. Moreover, it is unknown what the clinical outcome of these patients is when the stem is left in situ. The aim of our study was to describe the incidence of UPIC in patients undergoing cup revision and to determine the need for total revision in this patient group during follow-up. Methods/design. In this retrospective multicenter cohort study, we included all consecutive patients that underwent a cup revision between 2015–2017 and had a minimal follow-up of 2 years. Patients were divided in 3 cohorts: i) no positive intra operative cultures; ii) one UPIC; iii) two or more UPIC. Cases in whom 2 or fewer cultures were obtained during cup revision were excluded from the analysis. Results. From the 334 evaluated cases, 77 were excluded because an inadequate number of cultures were obtained. From the total of 257 included cases, the incidence of UPIC was 16% (n=39). 21 cases had one (8%), and 18 cases had two or more UPIC (7%). After two years of follow up, implant survival in the no UPIC group was 88% (95% CI 0.83 – 0.93), in the one UPIC group 95% (95% CI 0.86 – 1.0), and in the two or more UPIC group 77% (95% CI 0.57 – 0.97). Survival analysis showed no statistically significant differences between the cohorts as determined by cox regressive analysis and log rank test (P = 0.19). Conclusion. The incidence of UPIC in patients who undergo cup revision is relatively high but does not seem to have a major influence on the need for total revision of the hip during a follow-up of 2 years

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

Introduction. The mobile-bearing (MB) total knee arthroplasty (TKA) design was introduced with the aim of reducing polyethylene wear and component loosening seen in the fixed-bearing (FB) design. A recent joint registry study has revealed increased risk for all-cause revision, but not revision for infection, in MB-TKA. We used the New Zealand Joint Registry (NZJR) to compare all-cause revision rates, and revision rates for aseptic loosening of MB-TKA compared with fixed bearing (FB) TKA. Methods. All patients who underwent a primary TKA registered in the NZJR between the 1st January 1999 to 31st December 2021 were identified. Analysis compared MB to FB designs, with sub analysis of implants from a single company. We identified 135,707 primary TKAs, with 104,074 (76.7%) FB-TKAs and 31,633 (23.3%) MB-TKAs recorded. We examined all-cause revision rates, reasons for revision and performed survival analyses. Results. For all-comers, MB-TKA had an all-cause revision rate of 0.43/100-component-years (OCY) compared with 0.42/OCY for FB-TKA (p=0.09). The all-cause revision rate was higher for those age < 65 years (MB TKA 0.60/OCY vs. FB-TKA 0.59/OCY) compared to those > 65 years at time of primary TKA (MB-TKA 0.29/OCY vs. FB-TKA 0.32/OCY), however there was no statistically significant difference between implant design in either age group (p=0.16 and p=0.64; respectively). Similarly, there was no difference in revision rates for aseptic loosening between implant designs. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis demonstrates no statistically significant difference in revision-free survival of implants, with both MB-TKA and FB-TKA demonstrating ∼93% revision free survival at 23 years. Conclusions. Both FB- and MB-TKA demonstrated excellent survivorship, with no significant difference in all-cause revision rates or revision for aseptic loosening between implant designs

The purpose of this study was to determine long-term survival free from all-cause revision and stem-related failure, as well as radiographic and functional outcomes of the ZMR stem in revision THA. We retrospectively identified all patients in our institutional database who underwent revision THA using the ZMR Revision Hip system from the year 2000 to 2007 (minimum two-year follow-up). Of the 112 ZMR hips (110 patients) identified, a total of 106 hips (104 patients) met inclusion criteria. The mean study follow-up 13.9 years (range 2–22). Indications for index ZMR revision included aseptic loosening (72.1%), periprosthetic joint infection (17.3%), periprosthetic fracture (9.6%), and stem fracture (1.0%). Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to determine the all-cause and stem-related failure revision-free survival. Validated patient reported outcomes were collected and available radiographs were reviewed to determine implant stability. A total of 17 hips (16.0%) underwent a re-revision of any component. The indications for re-revision were stem failure (35.3%), infection (29.4%), instability (29.4%), and aseptic loosening of the acetabular component (5.9%). The five- and 15-year all-cause survivorship was 89.5% (95% CI 86.5–92.5) and 83.0% (95% CI 79.2–86.8), respectively. There were six re-revisions for stem failure (5.7%); five for stem fracture and one for aseptic loosening. The average time to stem failure was 4.6 years (range 1.3–8.2). The five- and 15-year survivorship free from stem-related failure was 97.2% (95% CI 95.6–98.8) and 93.9% (95% CI 91.5–96.3), respectively. At final follow-up the mean Oxford hip score was 36.9 and all surviving ZMR stems were well fixed on radiographs. Femoral revision with the ZMR stem offers satisfactory long-term survivorship and promising clinical outcomes. Although uncommon, stem fracture was the most common reason for stem-related failure

Aim. The duration of systemic antibiotic therapy following first-stage surgery is contentious. Our Institution's philosophy is to perform an aggressive debridement, use high concentration targeted antibiotics through cement beads and systemic prophylactic antibiotics alone. In the presence of significant soft tissue infection or microbiological diagnostic uncertainty; systemic antibiotics may be prescribed for 5 days whilst awaiting tissue culture results. The aim of this study was to assess the success of our philosophy in the management of PJI of the hip using our two-stage protocol. Method. A retrospective review of our Institution's prospectively-collected database was performed to identify those patients who were planned to undergo a two-stage hip revision procedure for PJI. All patients had a confirmed diagnosis of PJI as per the major criteria of MSIS 2013, a minimum 5-years follow up and were assessed at the time of review using the MSIS working group outcome-reporting tool (2018). They were then grouped into “successful” or “unsuccessful” (suppressive antibiotics, further revision for infection, death within 1 year). Results. 299 intended two-stage hip revisions in 289 patients (6 repeat ipsilateral two-stage, 4 bilateral two-stage) met our inclusion criteria. 258 (86%) patients proceeded to 2. nd. stage surgery. Median follow up was 10.7 years. 91% success rate was observed for those patients who underwent reimplantation; dropping to 86% when including the patients who did not proceed to second stage surgery. The median duration of post-operative systemic antibiotics following first stage surgery was 5 days (IQR 5–9). No significant difference in outcome was observed in patients who received either; < / = 48 hours (86%; n=70) compared to > 48 hours antibiotics (86%; n=229; p=0.96) or </= 5 days of antibiotics (88%; n=202) compared to > 5 days antibiotics (82%; p=0.38). A significant majority had gram-positive (88%) infection with 30% being polymicrobial. Greater success rates were observed for gram-positive PJI (87%); than for gram-negative PJI (84%) and mixed Gram infection (72%; p=0.098). Conclusion. Aggressive surgical debridement with high concentration, targeted local antibiotic delivery at time of first stage hip surgery, without prolonged systemic antibiotics, provides a high rate of success, responsible antibiotic stewardship and reduced hospital costs

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

Local antimicrobial therapy is an integral aspect of treating orthopaedic device related infection (ODRI), which is conventionally administered via polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) bone cement. PMMA, however, is limited by a suboptimal antibiotic release profile and a lack of biodegradability. In this study, we compare the efficacy of PMMA versus an antibioticloaded hydrogel in a single- stage revision for chronic methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) ODRI in. sheep. Antibiofilm activity of the antibiotic combination (gentamicin and vancomycin) was determined in vitro. Swiss alpine sheep underwent a single-stage revision of a tibial intramedullary nail with MRSA infection. Local gentamicin and vancomycin therapy was delivered via hydrogel or PMMA (n = 5 per group), in conjunction with systemic antibiotic therapy. In vivo observations included: local antibiotic tissue concentration, renal and liver function tests, and quantitative microbiology on tissues and hardware post-mortem. There was a nonsignificant reduction in biofilm with an increasing antibiotic concentration in vitro (p = 0.12), confirming the antibiotic tolerance of the MRSA biofilm. In the in vivo study, four out of five sheep from each treatment group were culture negative. Antibiotic delivery via hydrogel resulted in 10–100 times greater local concentrations for the first 2–3 days compared with PMMA and were comparable thereafter. Systemic concentrations of gentamicin were minimal or undetectable in both groups, while renal and liver function tests were within normal limits. This study shows that a single-stage revision with hydrogel or PMMA is equally effective, although the hydrogel offers certain practical benefits over PMMA, which make it an attractive proposition for clinical use

Aims. Femoral cement-in-cement revision is a well described technique to reduce morbidity and complications in hip revision surgery. Traditional techniques for septic revision of hip arthroplasty necessitate removal of all bone cement from the femur. In our two centres, we have been using a cement-in-cement technique, leaving the distal femoral bone cement in selected patients for septic hip revision surgery, both for single and the first of two-stage revision procedures. A prerequisite for adoption of this technique is that the surgeon considers the cement mantle to be intimately fixed to bone without an intervening membrane between cement and host bone. We aim to report our experience for this technique. Methods. We have analyzed patients undergoing this cement-in-cement technique for femoral revision in infection, and present a consecutive series of 89 patients. Follow-up was undertaken at a mean of 56.5 months (24.0 to 134.7) for the surviving cases. Results. Seven patients (7.9%) required further revision for infection. Ten patients died of causes unrelated to their infection before their two-year review (mean 5.9 months; 0.9 to 18.6). One patient was lost to follow-up at five months after surgery, and two patients died of causes unrelated to their hip shortly after their two-year review was due without attending. Of the remaining patients, 69 remained infection-free at final review. Radiological review confirms the mechanical success of the procedure as previously described in aseptic revision, and postoperative Oxford Hip Scores suggest satisfactory functional outcomes. Conclusion. In conclusion, we found that retaining a well-fixed femoral cement mantle in the presence of infection and undertaking a cement-in-cement revision was successful in 82 of the patients (92.1%) in our series of 89, both in terms of eradication of infection and component fixation. These results are comparable to other more invasive techniques and offer significant potential benefits to the patient. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(2):212–220

Aim. To describe the impact of a failed DAIR in the further prognosis of the prosthesis after a PJI. Method. A retrospective multicentrically study was conducted, including 10 institutions from all over the country. PJI-confirmed patients who underwent DAIR clinical records were revised. Age, sex, relevant previous conditions, Charlson comorbidity score, previous surgery, PJI diagnosis and surgical and antibiotic treatment, from the index surgery onwards. DAIR failure was defined as the removal of the prosthesis and/or an antibiotic suppressive treatment. Results. 95 failed DAIR were identified, 43 of whom were treated with another DAIR (70% success rate), 20 with one-stage revision (75% success rate) and 25 with two-stage revision (92% success rate). As risk factors for the failure of a second DAIR, a non-specialized surgical team(p=.0034), mobile components exchange(p=.009) and polymicrobial infections(p=.03) were identified. Regarding to one-stage revisions, no risk factors were identified, and regarding to two-stage revisions, polymicrobial infection were identified (p=.028). Conclusions. A second DAIR could sabe up to 70% of the prosthesis in our series. Furthermore, the outcome of the subsequent one or two-stage revision does not seem to be affected bay the previous failed DAIR. In terms of risk factors of failure, non-specialized surgical team, no mobile components exchange, and polymicrobial infections were identified for the DAIR, and polymicrobial infections for the two-stage revisions

Aims. Joint registries typically use revision of an implant as an endpoint and report survival rates after a defined number of years. However, reporting lifetime risk of revision may be more meaningful, especially in younger patients. We aimed to assess lifetime risk of revision for patients in defined age groups at the time of primary surgery. Methods. The New Zealand Joint Registry (NZJR) was used to obtain rates and causes of revision for all primary total hip arthroplasties (THAs) performed between January 1999 and December 2016. The NZJR is linked to the New Zealand Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages to obtain complete and accurate data. Patients were stratified by age at primary surgery, and lifetime risk of revision calculated according to age, sex, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification. The most common causes for revision were also analyzed for each age group. Results. The overall, ten-year implant survival rate was 93.6% (95% confidence interval (CI) 93.4% to 93.8%). It was lowest in the youngest age group (46 to 50 years), rising sequentially with increasing age to 97.5% in the oldest group (90 to 95 years). Lifetime risk of revision surgery was 27.6% (95% CI 27.3% to 27.8%) in those aged 46 to 50 years, decreasing with age to 1.1% (95% CI 0.0% to 5.8%) in those aged 90 to 95 years at the time of primary surgery. Higher ASA grades were associated with an increased lifetime risk of revision across all ages. The commonest causes for revision THA were aseptic loosening, infection, periprosthetic fracture, and dislocation. Conclusion. When counselling patients preoperatively, the lifetime risk of revision may be a more meaningful and useful measure of longer-term outcome than implant survival at defined time periods. This study highlights the considerably increased likelihood of subsequent revision surgery in younger age groups. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(3):479–485

Aims. The aim of this study was to determine the outcome of all primary total hip arthroplasties (THAs) and their subsequent revision procedures in patients aged under 50 years performed at our institution. Methods. All 1,049 primary THAs which were undertaken in 860 patients aged under 50 years between 1988 and 2018 in our tertiary care institution were included. We used cemented implants in both primary and revision surgery. Impaction bone grafting was used in patients with acetabular or femoral bone defects. Kaplan-Meier analyses were used to determine the survival of primary and revision THA with the endpoint of revision for any reason, and of revision for aseptic loosening. Results. The mean age of the patients at the time of the initial THA was 38.6 years (SD 9.3). The mean follow-up of the THA was 8.7 years (2.0 to 31.5). The rate of survival for all primary THAs, acetabular components only, and femoral components only at 20 years’ follow-up with the endpoint of revision for any reason, was 66.7% (95% confidence interval (CI) 60.5 to 72.2), 69.1% (95% CI 63.0 to 74.4), and 83.2% (95% CI 78.1 to 87.3), respectively. A total of 138 revisions were performed. The mean age at the time of revision was 48.2 years (23 to 72). Survival of all subsequent revision procedures, revised acetabular, and revised femoral components at 15 years’ follow-up with the endpoint of revision for any reason was 70.3% (95% CI 56.1 to 80.7), 69.7% (95% CI 54.3 to 80.7), and 76.2% (95% CI 57.8 to 87.4), respectively. A Girdlestone excision arthroplasty was required in six of 860 patients (0.7%). Conclusion. The long-term outcome of cemented primary and subsequent revision THA is promising in these young patients. We showed that our philosophy of using impaction bone grafting in patients with acetabular and femoral defects is a very suitable option when treating young patients. Surgeons should realize that knowledge of the outcome of subsequent revision surgery, which is inevitable in young patients, must be communicated to this group of patients prior to their initial THA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(3):368–375

Aims. The aim of this modified Delphi process was to create a structured Revision Hip Complexity Classification (RHCC) which can be used as a tool to help direct multidisciplinary team (MDT) discussions of complex cases in local or regional revision networks. Methods. The RHCC was developed with the help of a steering group and an invitation through the British Hip Society (BHS) to members to apply, forming an expert panel of 35. We ran a mixed-method modified Delphi process (three rounds of questionnaires and one virtual meeting). Round 1 consisted of identifying the factors that govern the decision-making and complexities, with weighting given to factors considered most important by experts. Participants were asked to identify classification systems where relevant. Rounds 2 and 3 focused on grouping each factor into H1, H2, or H3, creating a hierarchy of complexity. This was followed by a virtual meeting in an attempt to achieve consensus on the factors which had not achieved consensus in preceding rounds. Results. The expert group achieved strong consensus in 32 out of 36 factors following the Delphi process. The RHCC used the existing Paprosky (acetabulum and femur), Unified Classification System, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification systems. Patients with ASA grade III/IV are recognized with a qualifier of an asterisk added to the final classification. The classification has good intraobserver and interobserver reliability with Kappa values of 0.88 to 0.92 and 0.77 to 0.85, respectively. Conclusion. The RHCC has been developed through a modified Delphi technique. RHCC will provide a framework to allow discussion of complex cases as part of a local or regional hip revision MDT. We believe that adoption of the RHCC will provide a comprehensive and reproducible method to describe each patient’s case with regard to surgical complexity, in addition to medical comorbidities that may influence their management. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(5):423–431

The optimum indications for debridement, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR) are unclear. Previous studies have demonstrated higher success rate of DAIR within one year of the primary arthroplasty. This study aimed to compare the success rate of DAIR vs revision in “early” and “late” infections to provide guidance for clinical decision making. The Prosthetic Joint Infection in Australia and New Zealand Observational (PIANO) cohort prospectively recorded PJIs between July 2014 and December 2017 in 27 hospitals. This study included PIANO patients with first time PJIs occurring after primary TKA. Treatment success was defined as the patient being alive, free from further revision and without clinical or microbiological evidence of reinfection at two years follow-up. “Early” and “late” infections were analyzed separately. Univariate analysis compared demographic and disease specific factors between the DAIR and Revision groups. Multivariate binary logistic regression identified whether treatment strategy and other risk factors were associated with treatment success in “early” and “late” infections. In 117 “early” (<1 year) infections, treatment success rate was 56% in the DAIR group and 54% in the revision group (p=0.878). No independent risk factors were associated with treatment outcome on multivariate analysis. In 134 “late” (>1 year) infections, treatment success rate was 34.4% in the DAIR group and 60.5% in the revision group (OR 3.07 p=0.006). On multivariate analysis, revision was associated with 2.47x higher odds of success (p=0.041) when compared to DAIR, patients with at least one significant co-morbidity (OR 2.27, p=0.045) or with Staphylococcus aureus PJIs (OR 2.5, p=0.042) had higher odds of failure. In “late” PJIs occurring >1 year following primary TKA, treatment strategy with revision rather than DAIR was associated with greater success. Patients with significant comorbidities and Staphylococcus aureus PJIs were at higher risk of failure regardless of treatment strategy

Aims. The aim of this study was to determine the long-term mortality rate, and to identify factors associated with this, following primary and revision knee arthroplasty (KA). Methods. Data from the Scottish Arthroplasty Project (1998 to 2019) were retrospectively analyzed. Patient mortality data were linked from the National Records of Scotland. Analyses were performed separately for the primary and revised KA cohorts. The standardized mortality ratio (SMR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated for the population at risk. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards were used to identify predictors and estimate relative mortality risks. Results. At a median 7.4 years (interquartile range (IQR) 4.0 to 11.6) follow-up, 27.8% of primary (n = 27,474/98,778) and 31.3% of revision (n = 2,611/8,343) KA patients had died. Both primary and revision cohorts had lower mortality rates than the general population (SMR 0.74 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.74); p < 0.001; SMR 0.83 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.86); p < 0.001, respectively), which persisted for 12 and eighteight years after surgery, respectively. Factors associated with increased risk of mortality after primary KA included male sex (hazard ratio (HR) 1.40 (95% CI 1.36 to 1.45)), increasing socioeconomic deprivation (HR 1.43 (95% CI 1.36 to 1.50)), inflammatory polyarthropathy (HR 1.79 (95% CI 1.68 to 1.90)), greater number of comorbidities (HR 1.59 (95% CI 1.51 to 1.68)), and periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) requiring revision (HR 1.92 (95% CI 1.57 to 2.36)) when adjusting for age. Similarly, male sex (HR 1.36 (95% CI 1.24 to 1.49)), increasing socioeconomic deprivation (HR 1.31 (95% CI 1.12 to 1.52)), inflammatory polyarthropathy (HR 1.24 (95% CI 1.12 to 1.37)), greater number of comorbidities (HR 1.64 (95% CI 1.33 to 2.01)), and revision for PJI (HR 1.35 (95% 1.18 to 1.55)) were independently associated with an increased risk of mortality following revision KA when adjusting for age. Conclusion. The SMR of patients undergoing primary and revision KA was lower than that of the general population and remained so for several years post-surgery. However, approximately one in four patients undergoing primary and one in three patients undergoing revision KA died within tenten years of surgery. Several patient and surgical factors, including PJI, were associated with the risk of mortality within ten years of primary and revision surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(1):45–52

Revision knee arthroplasty is a complex procedure with the number and cost of knee revision procedures performed per year expected to rise. Few studies have examined adverse events following revision arthroplasty. The objective of this study was to determine rates of serious adverse events in patients undergoing revision knee arthroplasty with consideration of the indication for revision (urgent versus elective indications) and to compare these with primary arthroplasty and re-revision arthroplasty. Patients undergoing primary knee arthroplasty were identified in the UK Hospital Episode Statistics. Subsequent revision and re-revision arthroplasty procedures in the same patients and same knee were identified. The primary outcome was 90-day mortality and a logistic regression model was used to investigate factors associated with 90-day mortality and secondary adverse outcomes including infection (undergoing surgery), pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, stroke. Urgent indications for revision arthroplasty were defined as infection or fracture, and all other indications were included in the elective indications cohort. 939,021 primary knee arthroplasty cases were included of which 40,854 underwent subsequent revision arthroplasty, and 9,100 underwent re-revision arthroplasty. Revision surgery for elective indications was associated with a 90-day rate of mortality of 0.44% (135/30,826; 95% CI 0.37-0.52) which was comparable to primary knee arthroplasty (0.46%; 4,292/939,021; 95% CI 0.44-0.47). Revision arthroplasty for infection, however, was associated with a much higher mortality of 2.04% (184/9037; 95% CI 1.75-2.35; odds ratio [OR] 3.54; 95% CI 2.81-4.46), as was revision for periprosthetic fracture at 5.25% (52/991; 95% CI 3.94-6.82; OR 6.23; 95% CI 4.39-8.85). Higher rates of pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, and stroke were also observed in the infection and fracture cohort. These findings highlight the burden of complications associated with revision knee arthroplasty. They will inform shared decision-making for patients considering revision knee arthroplasty for elective indications. Patients presenting with infection of a knee arthroplasty or a periprosthetic fracture are at very high risk of adverse events. It is important that acute hospital services and tertiary referral centres caring for these patients are appropriately supported to ensure appropriate urgency and an anticipation for increased care requirements

Aims. The aim of this study was to determine if uncemented acetabular polyethylene (PE) liner geometry, and lip size, influenced the risk of revision for instability or loosening. Methods. A total of 202,511 primary total hip arthroplasties (THAs) with uncemented acetabular components were identified from the National Joint Registry (NJR) dataset between 2003 and 2017. The effect of liner geometry on the risk of revision for instability or loosening was investigated using competing risk regression analyses adjusting for age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, indication, side, institution type, surgeon grade, surgical approach, head size, and polyethylene crosslinking. Stratified analyses by surgical approach were performed, including pairwise comparisons of liner geometries. Results. The distribution of liner geometries were neutral (39.4%; 79,822), 10° (34.5%; 69,894), 15° (21.6%; 43,722), offset reorientating (2.8%; 5705), offset neutral (0.9%; 1,767), and 20° (0.8%; 1,601). There were 690 (0.34%) revisions for instability. Compared to neutral liners, the adjusted subhazard ratios of revision for instability were: 10°, 0.64 (p < 0.001); 15°, 0.48 (p < 0.001); and offset reorientating, 1.6 (p = 0.010). No association was found with other geometries. 10° and 15° liners had a time-dependent lower risk of revision for instability within the first 1.2 years. In posterior approaches, 10° and 15° liners had a lower risk of revision for instability, with no significant difference between them. The protective effect of lipped over neutral liners was not observed in laterally approached THAs. There were 604 (0.3%) revisions for loosening, but no association between liner geometry and revision for loosening was found. Conclusion. This registry-based study confirms a lower risk of revision for instability in posterior approach THAs with 10° or 15° lipped liners compared to neutral liners, but no significant difference between these lip sizes. A higher revision risk is seen with offset reorientating liners. The benefit of lipped geometries against revision for instability was not seen in laterally approached THAs. Liner geometry does not seem to influence the risk of revision for loosening. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(12):1774–1782

Aims. To determine if primary cemented acetabular component geometry (long posterior wall (LPW), hooded, or offset reorientating) influences the risk of revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) for instability or loosening. Methods. The National Joint Registry (NJR) dataset was analyzed for primary THAs performed between 2003 and 2017. A cohort of 224,874 cemented acetabular components were included. The effect of acetabular component geometry on the risk of revision for instability or for loosening was investigated using log-binomial regression adjusting for age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, indication, side, institution type, operating surgeon grade, surgical approach, polyethylene crosslinking, and prosthetic head size. A competing risk survival analysis was performed with the competing risks being revision for other indications or death. Results. The distribution of acetabular component geometries was: LPW 81.2%; hooded 18.7%; and offset reorientating 0.1%. There were 3,313 (1.5%) revision THAs performed, of which 815 (0.4%) were for instability and 838 (0.4%) were for loosening. Compared to the LPW group, the adjusted subhazard ratio of revision for instability in the hooded group was 2.31 (p < 0.001) and 4.12 (p = 0.047) in the offset reorientating group. Likewise, the subhazard ratio of revision for loosening was 2.65 (p < 0.001) in the hooded group and 13.61 (p < 0.001) in the offset reorientating group. A time-varying subhazard ratio of revision for instability (hooded vs LPW) was found, being greatest within the first three months. Conclusion. This registry-based study confirms a significantly higher risk of revision after cemented THA for instability and for loosening when a hooded or offset reorientating acetabular component is used, compared to a LPW component. Further research is required to clarify if certain patients benefit from the use of hooded or offset reorientating components, but we recommend caution when using such components in routine clinical practice. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(11):1669–1677

Abstract. Introduction. Elite athletes sustaining a graft re-rupture after ACL reconstruction (ACL-R) undergo revision reconstruction to enable their return to elite sport. The aim of this study was to determine the rate of return to play (RTP) and competition levels at 2 and 5 years post revision ACL-R. Methodology. A consecutive series of revision ACL-R in elite athletes undertaken by the senior author between 2009 and 2019 was retrospectively reviewed. Outcome measures were RTP rates and competition level. Results. Forty-nine athletes underwent revision ACL-R and were included. 87.8% returned to elite sport of which 75.5% were at the same level. At 2 years post-surgery, 79.6% were still playing, 51% at the same level; and at 5 years 44.4% were still playing, 20% at the same level. Athletes with > 50% thickness chondral lesions were less likely to RTP (66.7% vs 94.6%, p = 0.026) and maintain the same competition level (50% vs 83.8%, p = 0.047). Those with medial meniscus pathology were less likely to RTP at the pre-injury level (64.5% vs 94.4%, p = 0.036). Median career length after revision ACL-R was 73 months (95% CI, 43.4 to 102.6), 23 months at the same level (95% CI, 13.6 to 32.4). The probability of still playing at 5 years post-surgery was 55.9% with 22.5% chance of maintaining pre-injury competition level. Conclusion. RTP rates and competition level of elite athletes decreased over time after revision ACL-R. Chondral pathology of > 50% thickness were associated with lower RTP rates and competition levels

Aim. Perioperative myocardial infarction/injury (PMI) is a common complication in noncardiac surgery, contributing to postoperative morbidity and mortality. We aimed to identify the risk for PMI in periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in comparison to primary hip (THA) and knee arthroplasty (TKA) and to non-PJI revision surgery. Methods. Patients undergoing primary/revision THA/TKA at a University Hospital who were eligible for the institutional PMI screening and response program were prospectively included. Revision arthroplasties were divided into 2 groups (PJI revision and non-PJI revision). PJI was defined according to the EBJIS criteria, and included DAIR, one-stage and two-stage revisions. Non-PJI revisions included partial and/or complete exchange of components. The primary endpoint was PMI, secondary endpoints were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and all-cause mortality within 120 days. Results. The study population included 673 patients (443 primary THA/TKA, 119 PJI revision, 111 Non-PJI revision) enrolled from 05/2014 to 06/2018. The median age in all groups was 75 years. In primary, non-PJI and PJI revision surgery, 39%, 41% and 50%, respectively were male. PMI occurred in 12% of patients with primary arthroplasty compared to 20% and 35% in non-PJI and PJI revision, respectively (p<0.001 overall), with PJI having a significantly elevated risk over non-PJI revisions (p=0.014). Conversely, in MACE (4% primary vs 9% non-PJI vs 12% PJI, p=0.002) an all-cause mortality (2% primary vs 4% non-PJI vs 9% PJI, p<0.001) no significant difference between PJI and non-PJI revisions was observed. We found no difference for the risk of PMI comparing DAIR vs one-/two-stage PJI revision (p=0.88). In multivariable analysis (primary arthroplasty as reference), significant odds ratios for PMI included PJI (3, 1.7–5.3), coronary artery disease (2.9, 1.9–4.4), chronic heart faiure (1.3, 1.1–1.7) and age (1.1, 1.0–1.1 per each year age). Urgency of surgery, duration of surgery, to the presence of Staphylococcus aureus were not significant. impact on PMI. Conclusion. In PJI, PMI and MACE were 3-times, and death 4.5 times, respectively, more frequently observed than in primary arthroplasty. Also, PJI had the highest odds for PMI (3.0). Orthopaedic surgeons should be aware of the high PMI risk when performing revision surgery. This work confirms the importance of a peri-/postpoperative PMI screening and response program in the field of septic surgery

Aims. Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a devastating complication following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Two-stage revision has traditionally been considered the gold standard of treatment for established infection, but increasing evidence is emerging in support of one-stage exchange for selected patients. The objective of this study was to determine the outcomes of single-stage revision TKA for PJI, with mid-term follow-up. Methods. A total of 84 patients, with a mean age of 68 years (36 to 92), underwent single-stage revision TKA for confirmed PJI at a single institution between 2006 and 2016. In all, 37 patients (44%) were treated for an infected primary TKA, while the majority presented with infected revisions: 31 had undergone one previous revision (36.9%) and 16 had multiple prior revisions (19.1%). Contraindications to single-stage exchange included systemic sepsis, extensive bone or soft-tissue loss, extensor mechanism failure, or if primary wound closure was unlikely to be achievable. Patients were not excluded for culture-negative PJI or the presence of a sinus. Results. Overall, 76 patients (90.5%) were infection-free at a mean follow-up of seven years, with eight reinfections (9.5%). Culture-negative PJI was not associated with a higher reinfection rate (p = 0.343). However, there was a significantly higher rate of recurrence in patients with polymicrobial infections (p = 0.003). The mean Oxford Knee Score (OKS) improved from 18.7 (SD 8.7) preoperatively to 33.8 (SD 9.7) at six months postoperatively (p < 0.001). The Kaplan-Meier implant survival rate for all causes of reoperation, including reinfection and aseptic failure, was 95.2% at one year (95% confidence interval (CI) 87.7 to 98.2), 83.5% at five years (95% CI 73.2 to 90.3), and 78.9% at 12 years (95% CI 66.8 to 87.2). Conclusion. One-stage exchange, using a strict debridement protocol and multidisciplinary input, is an effective treatment option for the infected TKA. This is the largest single-surgeon series of consecutive cases reported to date, with broad inclusion criteria. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(5):305–313