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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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