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. 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. 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

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

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. 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

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

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

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

Aims. To 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

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. 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

Aims. We wanted to evaluate the effects of a bone anabolic agent (bone morphogenetic protein 2 (BMP-2)) on an anti-catabolic background (systemic or local zoledronate) on fixation of allografted revision implants. Methods. An established allografted revision protocol was implemented bilaterally into the stifle joints of 24 canines. At revision surgery, each animal received one BMP-2 (5 µg) functionalized implant, and one raw implant. One group (12 animals) received bone graft impregnated with zoledronate (0.005 mg/ml) before impaction. The other group (12 animals) received untreated bone graft and systemic zoledronate (0.1 mg/kg) ten and 20 days after revision surgery. Animals were observed for an additional four weeks before euthanasia. Results. No difference was detected on mechanical implant fixation (load to failure, stiffness, energy) between local or systemic zoledronate. Addition of BMP-2 had no effect on implant fixation. In the histomorphometric evaluation, implants with local zoledronate had more area of new bone on the implant surface (53%, p = 0.025) and higher volume of allograft (65%, p = 0.007), whereas implants in animals with systemic zoledronate had the highest volume of new bone (34%, p = 0.003). Systemic zoledronate with BMP-2 decreased volume of allograft by 47% (p = 0.017). Conclusion. Local and systemic zoledronate treatment protects bone at different stages of maturity; local zoledronate protects the allograft from resorption and systemic zoledronate protects newly formed bone from resorption. BMP-2 in the dose evaluated with experimental revision implants was not beneficial, since it significantly increased allograft resorption without a significant compensating anabolic effect. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2021;10(8):488–497

Aims. This study aimed to compare the effect of antibiotic-loaded bone cement (ALBC) versus plain bone cement (PBC) on revision rates for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) and all-cause revisions following primary elective total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Methods. MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases were systematically searched for studies comparing ALBC versus PBC, reporting on revision rates for PJI or all-cause revision following primary elective THA or TKA. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed. The study was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO ID CRD42018107691). Results. Nine studies and one registry report were identified, enabling the inclusion of 371,977 THA and 671,246 TKA. Pooled analysis for THA demonstrated ALBC was protective against revision for PJI compared with PBC (relative risk (RR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56 to 0.77; p < 0.001), however, no differences were seen for all-cause revision rate (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.09; p = 0.100). For TKA, there were no significant differences in revision rates for PJI or all causes between ALBC and PBC (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.45; p = 0.730, and RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.02; p = 0.060, respectively). Conclusion. ALBC demonstrated a protective effect against revision for PJI compared with PBC in THA with no difference in all-cause revisions. No differences in revision rates for PJI and all-cause revision between ALBC and PBC for TKA were observed. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(1):7–15

Aims. The rate of dislocation when traditional single bearing implants are used in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) has been reported to be between 8% and 10%. The use of dual mobility bearings can reduce this risk to between 0.5% and 2%. Dual mobility bearings are more expensive, and it is not clear if the additional clinical benefits constitute value for money for the payers. We aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of dual mobility compared with single bearings for patients undergoing revision THA. Methods. We developed a Markov model to estimate the expected cost and benefits of dual mobility compared with single bearing implants in patients undergoing revision THA. The rates of revision and further revision were calculated from the National Joint Registry of England and Wales, while rates of transition from one health state to another were estimated from the literature, and the data were stratified by sex and age. Implant and healthcare costs were estimated from local procurement prices and national tariffs. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated using published utility estimates for patients undergoing THA. Results. At a minimum five-year follow-up, the use of dual mobility was cost-effective with an estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of between £3,006 and £18,745/QALY for patients aged < 55 years and between 64 and 75 years, respectively. For those aged > 75 years dual mobility was only cost-effective if the timeline was beyond seven years. The use of dual mobility bearings was cost-saving for patients aged < 75 years and cost-effective for those aged > 75 years if the time horizon was beyond ten years. Conclusion. The use of dual mobility bearings is cost-effective compared with single bearings in patients undergoing revision THA. The younger the patient is, the more likely it is that a dual mobility bearing can be more cost-effective and even cost-saving. The results are affected by the time horizon and cost of bearings for those aged > 75 years. For patients aged > 75 years, the surgeon must decide whether the use of a dual mobility bearing is a viable economic and clinical option. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(9):1128–1135

Aims. To estimate the measurement properties for the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) in patients undergoing revision knee arthroplasty (responsiveness, minimal detectable change (MDC-90), minimal important change (MIC), minimal important difference (MID), internal consistency, construct validity, and interpretability). Methods. Secondary data analysis was performed for 10,727 patients undergoing revision knee arthroplasty between 2013 to 2019 using a UK national patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) dataset. Outcome data were collected before revision and at six months postoperatively, using the OKS and EuroQol five-dimension score (EQ-5D). Measurement properties were assessed according to COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines. Results. A total of 9,219 patients had complete outcome data. Mean preoperative OKS was 16.7 points (SD 8.1), mean postoperative OKS 29.1 (SD 11.4), and mean change in OKS + 12.5 (SD 10.7). Median preoperative EQ-5D index was 0.260 (interquartile range (IQR) 0.055 to 0.691), median postoperative EQ-5D index 0.691 (IQR 0.516 to 0.796), and median change in EQ-5D index + 0.240 (IQR 0.000 to 0.567). Internal consistency was good with Cronbach’s α 0.88 (baseline) and 0.94 (post-revision). Construct validity found a high correlation of OKS total score with EQ-5D index (r = 0.76 (baseline), r = 0.83 (post-revision), p < 0.001). The OKS was responsive with standardized effect size (SES) 1.54 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.51 to 1.57), compared to SES 0.83 (0.81 to 0.86) for the EQ-5D index. The MIC for the OKS was 7.5 points (95% CI 5.5 to 8.5) based on the optimal cut-off with specificity 0.72, sensitivity 0.60, and area under the curve 0.66. The MID for the OKS was 5.2 points. The MDC-90 was 3.9 points. The OKS did not demonstrate significant floor or ceiling effects. Conclusion. This study found that the OKS was a useful and valid instrument for assessment of outcome following revision knee arthroplasty. The OKS was responsive to change and demonstrated good measurement properties. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(4):627–634

Aims. Joint registries classify all further arthroplasty procedures to a knee with an existing partial arthroplasty as revision surgery, regardless of the actual procedure performed. Relatively minor procedures, including bearing exchanges, are classified in the same way as major operations requiring augments and stems. A new classification system is proposed to acknowledge and describe the detail of these procedures, which has implications for risk, recovery, and health economics. Methods. Classification categories were proposed by a surgical consensus group, then ranked by patients, according to perceived invasiveness and implications for recovery. In round one, 26 revision cases were classified by the consensus group. Results were tested for inter-rater reliability. In round two, four additional cases were added for clarity. Round three repeated the survey one month later, subject to inter- and intrarater reliability testing. In round four, five additional expert partial knee arthroplasty surgeons were asked to classify the 30 cases according to the proposed revision partial knee classification (RPKC) system. Results. Four classes were proposed: PR1, where no bone-implant interfaces are affected; PR2, where surgery does not include conversion to total knee arthroplasty, for example, a second partial arthroplasty to a native compartment; PR3, when a standard primary total knee prosthesis is used; and PR4 when revision components are necessary. Round one resulted in 92% inter-rater agreement (Kendall’s W 0.97; p < 0.005), rising to 93% in round two (Kendall’s W 0.98; p < 0.001). Round three demonstrated 97% agreement (Kendall’s W 0.98; p < 0.001), with high intra-rater reliability (interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) 0.99; 95% confidence interval 0.98 to 0.99). Round four resulted in 80% agreement (Kendall’s W 0.92; p < 0.001). Conclusion. The RPKC system accounts for all procedures which may be appropriate following partial knee arthroplasty. It has been shown to be reliable, repeatable and pragmatic. The implications for patient care and health economics are discussed. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(8):638–645

Aims. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the use of antibiotic-loaded bone cement influenced the risk of revision surgery after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) for osteoarthritis. Methods. The study involved data collected by the National Joint Registry (NJR) for England and Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man between 1 September 2005 and 31 August 2017. Cox proportional hazards were used to investigate the association between use of antibiotic-loaded bone cement and the risk of revision due to prosthetic joint infection (PJI), with adjustments made for the year of the initial procedure, age at the time of surgery, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, head size, and body mass index (BMI). We looked also at the association between use of antibiotic-loaded bone cement and the risk of revision due to aseptic loosening or osteolysis. Results. The cohort included 418,857 THAs of whom 397,896 had received antibiotic-loaded bone cement and 20,961 plain cement. After adjusting for putative confounding factors, the risk of revision for PJI was lower in those in whom antibiotic-loaded bone cement was used (hazard ration (HR) 0.79; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64 to 0.98). There was also a protective effect on the risk of revision due to aseptic loosening or osteolysis, in the period of > 4.1 years after primary THA, HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.45, 0.72. Conclusion. Within the limits of registry analysis, this study showed an association between the use of antibiotic-loaded bone cement and lower rates of revision due to PJI. The findings support the continued use of antibiotic-loaded bone cement in cemented THA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(8):997–1002

Aims. Dislocation remains a significant complication after total hip arthroplasty (THA), being the third leading indication for revision. We present a series of acetabular revision using a dual mobility cup (DMC) and compare this with our previous series using the posterior lip augmentation device (PLAD). Methods. A retrospective review of patients treated with either a DMC or PLAD for dislocation in patients with a Charnley THA was performed. They were identified using electronic patient records (EPR). EPR data and radiographs were evaluated to determine operating time, length of stay, and the incidence of complications and recurrent dislocation postoperatively. Results. A total of 28 patients underwent revision using a DMC for dislocation following Charnley THA between 2013 and 2017. The rate of recurrent dislocation and overall complications were compared with those of a previous series of 54 patients who underwent revision for dislocation using a PLAD, between 2007 and 2013. There was no statistically significant difference in the mean distribution of sex or age between the groups. The mean operating time was 71 mins (45 to 113) for DMCs and 43 mins (21 to 84) for PLADs (p = 0.001). There were no redislocations or revisions in the DMC group at a mean follow-up of 55 months (21 to 76), compared with our previous series of PLAD which had a redislocation rate of 16% (n = 9) and an overall revision rate of 25% (n = 14, p = 0.001) at a mean follow-up of 86 months (45 to 128). Conclusion. These results indicate that DMC outperforms PLAD as a treatment for dislocation in patients with a Charnley THA. This should therefore be the preferred form of treatment for these patients despite a slightly longer operating time. Work is currently ongoing to review outcomes of DMC over a longer follow-up period. PLAD should be used with caution in this patient group with preference given to acetabular revision to DMC. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(4):423–425