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

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

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

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

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

Abstract. Objectives. Total hip replacement (THR) is one of the most successful and cost-effective interventions in orthopaedic surgery. Dislocation is a debilitating complication of THR and managing an unstable THR constitutes a significant clinical challenge. Stability in THR is multifactorial and is influenced by surgical, patient and implant related factors. It is established that larger diameter femoral heads have a wider impingement-free range of movement and an increase in jump distance, both of which are relevant in reducing the risk of dislocation. However, they can generate higher frictional torque which has led to concerns related to increased wear and loosening. Furthermore, the potential for taper corrosion or trunnionosis is also a potential concern with larger femoral heads, particularly those made from cobalt-chrome. These concerns have meant there is hesitancy among surgeons to use larger sized heads. This study presents the comparison of clinical outcomes for different head sizes (28mm, 32mm and 36mm) in primary THR for 10,104 hips in a single centre. Methods. A retrospective study of all consecutive patients who underwent primary THR at our institution between 1st April 2003 and 31st Dec 2019 was undertaken. Institutional approval for this study was obtained. Demographic and surgical data were collected. The primary outcome measures were all-cause revision, revision for dislocation, and all-cause revision excluding dislocation. Continuous descriptive statistics used means, median values, ranges, and 95% confidence intervals where appropriate. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used to estimate time to revision. Cox proportional hazard regression analysis was used to compare revision rates between the femoral head size groups. Adjustments were made for age at surgery, gender, primary diagnosis, ASA score, articulation type, and fixation method. Results. 10,104 primary THRs were included; median age 68.6 years with 61.5% females. A posterior approach was performed in 71.6%. There were 3,295 hips with 28 mm heads (32.6%), 4,858 (48.1%) with 32 mm heads and 1,951 (19.3%) with 36 mm heads. Overall rate of revision was 1.7% with the lowest rate recorded for the 36mm group (2.7% vs. 1.3% vs. 1.1%). Cox regression analysis showed a decreased risk of all-cause revision for 32mm & 36mm head sizes as compared to 28mm; this was statistically significant for the 32mm group (p = 0.01). Risk of revision for dislocation was significantly reduced in both 32mm (p = 0.03) and 36mm (p = 0.03) head sizes. Analysis of all cause revision excluding dislocation showed no significant differences between head sizes. Conclusion. There was a significantly reduced risk of revision for all causes, but particularly revision for dislocation with larger head sizes (36mm & 32mm vs. 28mm). Concerns regarding increased risk of early revision for aseptic loosening, polyethylene wear or taper corrosion with larger heads appear to be unfounded in this cohort of 10,104 patients with a mean of 6.0-year follow-up. 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

Dislocation post THA confers a higher risk of re-dislocation (Kotwal et al, 2009). The dual mobility (DM) cup design (1974) was aimed at improving the stability by increasing the femoral head to neck ratio (Cuthbert et al., 2019) combining the ideas of low friction arthroplasty with increased jump distance associated with a big head arthroplasty. Understand the dislocation rates, rates of aseptic loosening, infection rate and revision rates between the 2 types of constructs to provide current and up-to date evidence. Medline, pubmed, embase and Cochrane databases were used based on PRISMA guidelines. RevMan software was used for the meta-analysis. Studies (English literature) which used DM construct with atleast 6 months follow-up used as intervention and non DM construct as control were included. 2 independent reviewers conducted the review with a third reviewer in case of difference in opinion regarding eligibility. Primary outcome was dislocation rate and secondary outcome was rate of revision. 564 articles identified out of which 44 articles were screened for full texts and eventually 4 systematic review articles found eligible for the study. Thus, study became a review of systematic reviews. From the 4 systematic reviews, another 35 studies were identified for data extraction and 13 papers were used for meta-analysis. Systematic reviews evaluated, projected an average follow up of 6-8 years with significantly lower dislocation rates for DM cups. The total number of patients undergoing DM cup primary THA were 30,559 with an average age 71 years while the control group consisted of 218,834 patients with an average age of 69 years. DM group had lower rate of dislocation (p < 0.00001), total lower rate of cup revision (p < 0.00001, higher incidence of fracture (p>0.05). DM THA is a viable alternative for conventional THA. The long-term results of DM cups in primary THA need to be further evaluated using high quality prospective studies and RCTs

Abstract. Introduction. Dislocation post THA confers a higher risk of re-dislocation (Kotwal et al, 2009). The dual mobility (DM) cup design (1974) was aimed at improving the stability by increasing the femoral head to neck ratio (Cuthbert et al., 2019) combining the ideas of low friction arthroplasty with increased jump distance associated with a big head arthroplasty. Aims. Understand the dislocation rates, rates of aseptic loosening, infection rate and revision rates between the 2 types of constructs to provide current and up-to date evidence. Methods. Medline, pubmed, embase and Cochrane databases were used based on PRISMA guidelines. RevMan software was used for the meta-analysis. Studies (English literature) which used DM construct with atleast 6 months follow-up used as intervention and non DM construct as control were included. 2 independent reviewers conducted the review with a third reviewer in case of difference in opinion regarding eligibility. Primary outcome was dislocation rate and secondary outcome was rate of revision. Results. 564 articles identified out of which 44 articles were screened for full texts and eventually 4 systematic review articles found eligible for the study. Thus, study became a review of systematic reviews. From the 4 systematic reviews, another 35 studies were identified for data extraction and 13 papers were used for meta-analysis. Systematic reviews evaluated, projected an average follow up of 6–8 years with significantly lower dislocation rates for DM cups. The total number of patients undergoing DM cup primary THA were 30,559 with an average age 71 years while the control group consisted of 218,834 patients with an average age of 69 years. DM group had lower rate of dislocation (p < 0.00001), total lower rate of cup revision (p < 0.00001, higher incidence of fracture (p>0.05). Conclusion. DM THA is a viable alternative for conventional THA. The long-term results of DM cups in primary THA need to be further evaluated using high quality prospective studies and RCTs. 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

Abstract. Introduction. Component mal-positioning in total hip replacement (THR) and total knee replacement (TKR) can increase the risk of revision for various reasons. Compared to conventional surgery, relatively improved accuracy of implant positioning can be achieved using computer assisted technologies including navigation, patient-specific jigs, and robotic systems. However, it is not known whether application of these technologies has improved prosthesis survival in the real-world. This study aimed to compare risk of revision for all-causes following primary THR and TKR, and revision for dislocation following primary THR performed using computer assisted technologies compared to conventional technique. Methods. We performed an observational study using National Joint Registry data. All adult patients undergoing primary THR and TKR for osteoarthritis between 01/04/2003 to 31/12/2020 were eligible. Patients who received metal-on-metal bearing THR were excluded. We generated propensity score weights, using Sturmer weight trimming, based on: age, gender, ASA grade, side, operation funding, year of surgery, approach, and fixation. Specific additional variables included position and bearing for THR and patellar resurfacing for TKR. For THR, effective sample sizes and duration of follow up for conventional versus computer-guided and robotic-assisted analyses were 9,379 and 10,600 procedures, and approximately 18 and 4 years, respectively. For TKR, effective sample sizes and durations of follow up for conventional versus computer-guided, patient-specific jigs, and robotic-assisted groups were 92,579 procedures over 18 years, 11,665 procedures over 8 years, and 644 procedures over 3 years, respectively. Outcomes were assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis and expressed using hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results. For THR, analysis comparing computer-guided versus conventional technique demonstrated HR of 0.771 (95%CI 0.573–1.036) p=0.085, and 0.594 (95%CI 0.297–1.190) p=0.142, for revision for all-causes and dislocation, respectively. When comparing robotic-assisted versus conventional technique, HR for revision for all-causes was 0.480 (95%CI 0.067 –3.452) p=0.466. For TKR, compared to conventional surgery, HR for all-cause revision for procedures performed using computer guidance and patient-specific jigs were 0.967 (95% CI 0.888–1.052) p=0.430, and 0.937 (95% CI 0.708–1.241) p=0.65, respectively. HR for analysis comparing robotic-assisted versus conventional technique was 2.0940 (0.2423, 18.0995) p = 0.50. Conclusions. This is the largest study investigating this topic utilising propensity score analysis methods. We did not find a statistically significant difference in revision for all-causes and dislocation although these analyses are underpowered to detect smaller differences in effect size between groups. Additional comparison for revision for dislocation between robotic-assisted versus conventionally performed THR was not performed as this is a subset of revision for all-causes and wide confidence intervals were already observed for that analysis. It is also important to mention this NJR analysis study is of an observational study design which has inherent limitations. Nonetheless, this is the most feasible study design to answer this research question requiring use of a large data set due to revision being a rare outcome. 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

The purpose of this study is to report the clinical and radiological outcomes of patients undergoing primary or revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty using custom 3D printed components to manage severe glenoid bone loss with a minimum of 2-year follow-up. After ethical approval (reference: 17/YH/0318), patients were identified and invited to participate in this observational study. Inclusion criteria included: 1) severe glenoid bone loss necessitating the need for custom implants; 2) patients with definitive glenoid and humeral components implanted more than 2 years prior; 3) ability to comply with patient reported outcome questionnaires. After seeking consent, included patients underwent clinical assessment utilising the Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS), Constant-Murley score, American Shoulder and Elbow Society Score (ASES), and quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Score (quickDASH). Radiographic assessment included AP and axial projections. Patients were invited to attend a CT scan to confirm osseointegration. Statistical analysis utilised included descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation) and paired t test for parametric data. 3 patients had revision surgery prior to the 2-year follow-up. Of these, 2/3 retained their custom glenoid components. 4 patients declined to participate. 5 patients were deceased at the time of commencement of the study. 21 patients were included in this analysis. The mean follow-up was 36.1 months from surgery (range 22–60.2 months). OSS improved from a mean 16 (SD 9.1) to 36 (SD 11.5) (p < 0.001). Constant-Murley score improved from mean 9 (SD 9.2) to 50 (SD 16.4) (p < 0.001). QuickDASH improved from mean 67 (SD 24) to 26 (SD 27.2) (p = 0.004). ASES improved from mean 28 (SD 24.8) to 70 (SD 23.9) (p = 0.007). Radiographic evaluation demonstrated good osseointegration in all 21 included patients. The utility of custom 3D-printed components for managing severe glenoid bone loss in primary and revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty yields significant clinical improvements in this complex patient cohort

Ruling out an infection in one-stage knee and hip revisions for presumed aseptic failure by conventional tissue cultures takes up to 14 days. Multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is a quick test (4–5 hours) for detecting infections. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the negative predictive value of an automated multiplex PCR for the detection of microorganisms in synovial fluid obtained intraoperatively in unsuspected knee and hip revisions. The NPV of the multiplex PCR U-ITI system of synovial fluid compared to tissue cultures of knee and hip revisions was 95.7% and 92.5%, respectively. Cultures required several days for growth whereas the automated mPCR U-ITI system provided results within five hours. The multiplex PCR U-ITI system is a quick and reliable test in ruling out infection in presumed aseptic knee and hip revisions. With this test the number of unsuspected infected revisions can be lowered and antibiotic overtreatment as well as undertreatment after one-stage revision arthroplasty can be avoided. This directly results in a reduction in length of hospital stay, hospital costs and possible antibiotic resistance development

Summary Statement. We analysed impaction bone grafting used together with cemented or uncemented fixation in acetabular revision surgery. The overall risk for re-revision did not differ between the cemented and uncemented group. However, aseptic loosening was more common in the cemented group. Background. Several surgical techniques address bone defects in cup revision surgery. Bone impaction grafting, introduced more than thirty years ago, is a biologically and mechanically appealing method. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of bone impaction grafting when used with uncemented and cemented fixation in cup revision surgery. Uncemented cups resting on more than 50% host bone were used as controls. Patient and Methods. Cup fixation was studied in ninety hips (eighty-two patients), revised due to loosening between 1993 and 1997. There were fifty-three isolated cup and thirty-seven total revisions. Patients were followed for thirteen years using conventional radiography, radiostereometry (RSA), Harris Hip score and a pain questionnaire. Peroperatively the surgeon assessed the acetabular bone bed vitality. In hips where the cup was judged to rest on > 50% vital bone (group I, n=43), an uncemented cup was used. If the cup was resting on ≤ 50% living bone, uncemented (group IIa, n=21,) or cemented (group IIb, n=26) technique was chosen, according to the surgeon's preference. The mean age of patients at index revision was 61±12 years, 56% were females. The most common index diagnosis was primary osteoarthritis (n=45) followed by rheumatoid arthritis (n=10). Results. At thirteen years, acetabular component failure had necessitated a second revision in 6/7/8 hips in Groups I/IIa/IIb respectively. These re-revisions were performed 1–10 (mean 7.1) years after index revision. Moreover four cup / liner revisions were performed in hips with femoral loosening, not allowing further RSA measurements. These twenty-five hips were followed until re-revision. Deceased patients (n=21) and patients with deteriorating medical condition, not able to attend the follow-up (n=7), were censored in the survival statistics. Aseptic loosening was the most common reason of re-revision. However, in the uncemented groups (I/IIa), four cups were re-revised due to liner wear, osteolysis or instability. In the total study population, and up to two years, the median proximal migration was lowest in Group I followed by Group IIa and Group IIb (p≤0,006). At thirteen years the mean proximal migration was highest in Group IIb 1.29 mm (SD 1.23) followed by Group I 0.30 mm (SD 0.40) and Group IIa 0.22 mm (SD 0.22), p = 0.05. In cases subsequently re-revised because of loosening or with radiographically loose cups at the last follow-up, a higher proximal migration was observed compared to the non-revised and radiographically well-fixed group (up to seven years: p < 0.001; thirteen years: p=0.04). Discussion/Conclusion. We found an increased risk for rerevision in cases with less than 50% host bone-implant contact. These cups showed high early proximal migration, measured by RSA, indicating poor initial fixation. Rate of re-revision due to any reason did not differ between cemented and uncemented cups. The cemented group (IIb) had a higher risk of being re-revised due to aseptic loosening. Poor bone stock, use of small bone chips, inferior impaction technique, and no or restricted contact with living bone are probable reasons for failures when extensive bone grafting is needed

Patients ≤ 55 years have a high primary TKA revision rate compared to patients >55 years. Guided motion knee devices are commonly used in younger patients yet outcomes remain unknown. In this sub-group analysis of a large multicenter study, 254 TKAs with a second-generation guided motion knee implant were performed between 2011–2017 in 202 patients ≤ 55 years at seven US and three European sites. Revision rates were compared with Australian Joint Registry (AOANJRR) 2017 data. Average age 49.7 (range 18–54); 56.4% females; average BMI 34 kg/m2; 67.1% obese; patellae resurfaced in 98.4%. Average follow-up 4.2 years; longest follow-up six years; 27.5% followed-up for ≥ five years. Of eight revisions: total revision (one), tibial plate replacements (three), tibial insert exchanges (four). One tibial plate revision re-revised to total revision. Revision indications were mechanical loosening (n=2), infection (n=3), peri-prosthetic fracture (n=1), and instability (n=2). The Kaplan-Meier revision estimate was 3.4% (95% C.I. 1.7% to 6.7%) at five years compared to AOANJRR rate of 6.9%. There was no differential risk by sex. The revision rate of the second-generation guided motion knee system is lower in younger patients compared to registry controls

Revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) presents with increasing challenges, potentially compromising the integrity of a revision. The objective of this study was to assess radiologic outcomes of patients who underwent revision THA with a modular tapered stem (Reclaim, DePuy Synthes). This study retrospectively examined all revision Reclaim THAs between 2012 and 2016. Radiologic assessment compared x-rays at two time points: immediately after surgery and the most recent x-ray available. Leg length discrepancy, subsidence and line-to-line fit was assessed. Significant subsidence was considered ≥10mm. Adequate line-to-line fit was considered ≥30mm of bicortical contact. Descriptive statistics included clinical factors (i.e. age, Paprosky classification). P values <0.05 were considered significant. A total of 81 femoral revisions were completed. There were 42 females and 38 males with a mean age of 71 years (range, 46–89). Of these, 6 were revised (dislocation, fracture or infection), and 7 were lost to follow up. Average follow up time was 18 months (range, 1–46 months). Femoral revisions were classified as Paprosky 3a or 3b. Mean stem subsidence was 4.15mm (range, 0–25.6mm). Subsidence of the femoral stem was <10mm in 88% of patients. A total of 62% of patients had both subsidence <10mm and ≥30mm of bicortical contact. In patients with <10mm subsidence, 70% had ≥30mm of bicortical contact. There was a positive trend between cortical contact and stem stability (OR 2.3). The Reclaim modular femoral system has demonstrated radiographic stability. Inadequate initial fit is a potential determinant of subsidence

Background. Over 96% of primary total hip replacements (THR) recorded in the National Joint Registry (NJR) are performed through a posterior or lateral surgical approach. There is no high quality evidence available to support the use of one approach over the other in primary THR and even less evidence when the outcome of revision THR is considered. Methods. Questionnaires were sent to 267 patients who had revision hip replacements between January 2006 and March 2010 for aseptic loosening. They rated their pain from 0–10, and used the Self-Administered Patient Satisfaction Scale (SAPS), Oxford Hip Score (OHS), Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and Short form-12 (SF-12). Results. We performed 275 revision total hip replacements for aseptic loosening on patients in whom the primary operation details were available. Their mean age was 69 years (SD12) with 43% male and 57% right-sided procedures. 205 patients responded to our questionnaires (209/275 hips, 76%). Unfortunately 19 patients had died, 4 had dementia and 13 declined to participate. We were unable to contact a further 33.Grouping by approach, 20% (43/209) had primary and revision lateral approaches, 20% (43/209) had primary lateral and revision posterior and 60% (123/209) had both primary and revision via posterior approaches. The WOMAC and OHS were significantly better in patients who had a posterior approach for both primary and revision surgery, compared to those that did not (OHS p=0.028, WOMAC p=0.026). We found no significant differences in pain, satisfaction or health-related quality of life between the groups. Conclusions. Registry data may help further explore the relationship between surgical approach and outcome in revision hip surgery. A randomised controlled trial of the posterior versus lateral approach for revision surgery would provide a definitive answer. Level of Evidence. 2b - retrospective cohort study. Disclosures. No financial disclosures or conflicts of interests from any authors

Background. Frequency of primary total hip (THA) and total knee (TKA) arthroplasty procedures is increasing, with a subsequent rise in revision procedures. This study aims to describe timing and excess surgical mortality associated with revision THA and TKA compared to those on the waiting list. Methods. All patients from 2003–2013 in a single institution who underwent revision THA and TKA, or added to the waiting list for the same procedure were recorded. Mortality rates were calculated at cutoffs of 30- and 90-days post-operation or addition to the waiting list. Results. 561 and 547 patients were available for the survivorship analysis in the revision THA and TKA groups respectively. Following exclusion, 901 and 832 patients were available for the 30-day analysis and 484 and 568 patients for the 90-day analysis in the revision THA and revision TKA waiting list groups respectively. The 30- and 90-day mortality rate was significantly greater for the revision THA group compared to the waiting list group (excess surgical mortality of 0.357%, 95% confidence interval 0.098% to 0.866%; p=0.037) (odds ratio of 5.22, 95% confidence interval 0.626 to 43.524; excess surgical mortality of 0.863%, 95% confidence interval 0.455% to 1.153%; p=0.045). The 30- and 90-day mortality rate was not significantly greater for the revision TKA group compared to the waiting list group (excess surgical mortality of zero) (excess surgical mortality of 0.366%, 95% confidence interval 0.100% to 0.651%; p=0.075). Conclusions. Revision THA is associated with a significant excess surgical mortality rate at 30- and 90-days post operation when compared to the waiting list for the same procedure. However, we have been unable to quantify any increased risk after revision TKA. We would encourage other authors with access to larger samples to use our method to quantify excess mortality after revision TKA. Level of Evidence. III-Retrospective Cohort Study

Periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) are uncommon but are devastating complications of total knee replacement (TKR). We analysed the risk factors of revision for PJI following primary TKR and their association with PJI at different post-operative periods. Primary TKRs and subsequent revision surgeries performed for PJI from 2003–2014 were identified from the National Joint Registry (NJR). Multilevel piece-wise exponential non-proportional hazards models were used to estimate the effect of the investigated factors at different post-operative periods. Patient, perioperative and healthcare system characteristics were investigated and data from the Hospital Episode Statistics for England were linked to obtain information on specific comorbidities. The index TKRs consisted of 679,010 primaries with 3,659 subsequently revised for PJI, 7% within 3 months, 6% between 3–6months, 17% between 6–12months, 27% between 1–2years and 43% ≥2 years from the index procedure. Risk factors for revision for PJI included male sex, high BMI, high ASA grade and young age. Patients with chronic pulmonary disease, diabetes and liver disease had higher risk of revision for PJI, as had patients who had a primary TKR for an indication of trauma or inflammatory arthropathy. Surgical procedure, fixation method, constraint and bearing type influenced the risk of revision for PJI. Their effects were period-specific. No or small associations were found with the operating surgeon grade, surgical volume and hospital surgical volume. These findings from the world's largest joint replacement registry show a more complex picture than the meta-analyses published to date with specific time-dependent effects for the identified risk factors

Background. The two-stage revision strategy has been claimed as being the “gold standard” for treating prosthetic joint infection. The one-stage revision strategy remains an attractive alternative option, however, its effectiveness in comparison to the two-stage strategy remains uncertain. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to compare the effectiveness of one- and two-stage revision strategies to prevent re-infection after prosthetic hip infection. Methods. Cohort studies (prospective or retrospective) conducted in unselected patients with infection treated exclusively by one- or two-stage revision and reporting re-infection outcomes within two years of revision were retrieved from MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane databases, manual search of bibliographies to March 2015, and email contact with investigators. Data were extracted by two independent investigators and a consensus was reached with involvement of a third. Rates of re-infection were aggregated using random-effect models after arcsine transformation, and were grouped by study and population level characteristics. Results. In 38 one-stage studies, the rate (95% confidence intervals) of re-infection was 8.2% (6.0–10.8). The corresponding re-infection rate for 60 two-stage studies was 7.9% (6.2–9.7). Re-infection rates remained generally similar when grouped by several study and population level characteristics. There was no evidence of publication bias among contributing studies. Conclusion. Among unselected populations, evidence from aggregate published data suggest similar re-infection rates after one- or two-stage revision. More detailed analyses under a broader range of circumstances and exploration of other sources of heterogeneity will require collaborative pooling of individual participant data, which is ongoing within our Global Infection Orthopaedic Management (INFORM) collaboration. Level of evidence. Level 2a - Systematic reviews of cohort studies. Funding statement. This abstract presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Programme Grants for Applied Research scheme (grant number: RP-PG-1210-12005). The views expressed in this abstract are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health

Summary Statement

This paper is the first to compare the results of unicompartmental to total knee arthroplasty revision surgery between cases with explained pain and cases with unexplained pain. Revision surgery for unexplained pain usually results in a less favourable outcome.

Background. Hip resurfacing has resurged in the last decade due to a renewed interest in metal on metal bearing. One of the proposed advantages is ease of revision of the femoral component. Short term functional results after femoral revision are similar to those after conventional total hip replacement. Survival and function after revision of the acetabular component only or of both components have not been reported. We aimed to assess hip function and implant survival after revision of the acetabular component for failed Birmingham hip resurfacing (BHR). Methods. The Oswestry Outcome Centre collected data prospectively on 5000 patients who underwent hip resurfacing between 1997 and 2002. Of these, 182 hips were revised: 42% had revision of the femoral component only, 8% revision of the acetabular component only, and 50% revision of both components. This study analyzed patients who had revision of the acetabular component, either in isolation or in combination with the femoral component. Results. In the isolated acetabular revision group the median Harris Hip Score was 74 at a mean of 4.5 years post-revision. In the both components revision group the median Harris hip score was 85 at a mean of 4 years. There was no significant difference in function between the groups. Kaplan-Meier survivor ship analysis after revision showed an average survival of 91% at 10 years. There was a significant difference between survival of isolated acetabular revision (75%) and both component revision (96%). Conclusions. Revision total hip replacement subsequent to failure of hip resurfacing has good outcome and good midterm survival. Isolated acetabular revision and revision of both components had similar function but survival was significantly worse in the isolated acetabular revision group