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

Periprosthetic joint infection is a serious complication of primary total hip replacement (THR) with significant associated morbidity. In acute infection, Debridement, Antibiotics and Implant Retention (DAIR) may be considered. Current national guidelines recommend a DAIR should be performed by “an experienced arthroplasty surgeon┕ but do not specify the need for this to be a revision arthroplasty surgeon. We investigated outcomes in our NHS Trust of DAIR procedures performed by revision and non-revision arthroplasty surgeons. Infection registry data and patient records were analysed for all DAIR procedures of infected primary THRs between 2017 and 2021. Data collected included details of the primary surgery, the presentation with infection, the DAIR procedure and any subsequent complications including return to theatre at any time point. Routinely collected pre- and post-operative patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) were reviewed. 54 periprosthetic joint infections of primary THRs received a DAIR procedure. 41 DAIRs were performed by a revision surgeon and 13 by non-revision surgeons. There was no significant difference in time from primary THR to presentation with infection, time from presentation to DAIR or pre-operative C-reactive protein between the two groups. In 21 (38.9%) patients the DAIR procedure was classed as a treatment failure; 17 patients (31.5%) returned to theatre for further revision surgery, one (2.4%) died related to infection and three (5.6%) had persistent infection but did not receive further surgery. Treatment failure was significantly higher in the non-revision surgeon group (9/13 (69.2%)) than in the revision surgeon group (12/41 (29.3%)) (p = 0.02). Overall, improvement in PROMs after DAIR was seen at both six and 12 months. The overall success rate of DAIR was 61.1% and there was a sustained improvement in PROMs after surgery. However, there was a significant difference in failure rates between revision surgeons and non-revision surgeons

Aims. Our primary aim was to assess reoperation-free survival at one year after the index injury in patients aged ≥ 75 years treated with internal fixation (IF) or arthroplasty for undisplaced femoral neck fractures (uFNFs). Secondary outcomes were reoperations and mortality analyzed separately. Methods. We retrieved data on all patients aged ≥ 75 years with an uFNF registered in the Swedish Fracture Register from 2011 to 2018. The database was linked to the Swedish Arthroplasty Register and the National Patient Register to obtain information on comorbidity, mortality, and reoperations. Our primary outcome, reoperation, or death at one year was analyzed using restricted mean survival time, which gives the mean time to either event for each group separately. Results. Overall, 3,909 patients presenting with uFNFs were included. Of these patients, 3,604 were treated with IF and 305 with primary arthroplasty. There were no relevant differences in age, sex, or comorbidities between groups. In the IF group 58% received cannulated screws and 39% hook pins. In the arthroplasty group 81% were treated with hemiarthroplasty and 19% with total hip arthroplasty. At one year, 32% were dead or had been reoperated in both groups. The reoperation-free survival time over one year of follow-up was 288 days (95% confidence interval (CI) 284 to 292) in the IF group and 279 days (95% CI 264 to 295) in the arthroplasty group, with p = 0.305 for the difference. Mortality was 26% in the IF group and 31% in the arthroplasty group at one year. Reoperation rates were 7.1% in the IF group and 2.3% in the arthroplasty group. Conclusion. In older patients with a uFNF, reoperation-free survival at one year seems similar, regardless of whether IF or arthroplasty is the primary surgery. However, this comparison depends on the choice of follow-up time in that reoperations were more common after IF. In contrast, we found more early deaths after arthroplasty. Our study calls for a randomized trial comparing these two methods. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(2):86–92

Modular femoral stems offer surgeons great flexibility in biomechanical configuration during total hip replacement (THR) however introduce a taper-trunnion articulation known to be a source of additional wear debris through crevice, fretting and galvanic corrosion with mixed material combinations. This study aimed to investigate the influence of the trunnion bearing surface combination on the revision rate following primary total hip replacement (THR). All patients who underwent THR using an Exeter V40 cemented stainless steel stem and monobloc cemented polyethylene acetabular component (uncemented cups excluded to standardise the acetabular bearing surface and fixation) between January 2003 and December 2019 were extracted from the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the Isle of Man. The primary exposure was the head substrate used corresponding to the trunnion bearing. Time-to-event was determined by duration of implantation from primary surgery to revision with cases censored at death or end of available follow-up. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard models were used to identify predictors of all cause revision, adjusted for age, sex, American Association of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) grade, body mass index, surgical indication (osteoarthritis or other), and femoral head size. 229,870 THR were identified (66% female, mean age 73.4 years (SD 9.1) with the majority (91%) performed for osteoarthritis of which 4,598 were revised. Mean time from primary to revision or censoring was 6.8 years (SD 4.0). Multivariable modelling showed CoCr/SS trunnions were associated with a significantly higher risk of revision (hazard ratio (HR) 1.31 (95%CI 1.15 to 1.48, p<0.0001) as compared to SS/SS (reference). Both Alumina/SS (HR 0.74 (0.65 to 0.84), p<0.0001) and Zirconia/SS (HR 0.61 (0.49 to 0.74), p<0.0001) were associated with a significantly lower risk of revision. Ceramic heads on an Exeter stem were associated with significantly improved survivorship compared to metal heads in primary THR. CoCr/SS trunnion articulations had the poorest survivorship which may be contributed to by trunnionosis

The management of prosthetic joint infection (PJI) has been widely performed for total hip arthroplasties (THA), but none has compared it with hip resurfacing arthroplasty (RSA). We also carried out a retrospective case-control study comparing the surgical treatment of PJI by surgical debridement and implant retention between RSA and THA in order to clarify whether there was a difference in terms of (1) successful healing of PJI (2) functional scores after recovery (3) risk factors for recurrence of PJI. Our hypothesis was that simple debridement with prosthesis retention regardless of the timeframe allowed to obtain a higher success rate for RSA compared to THA. From 2010 to 2018, a single-center case-control study based on 3056 RSA found 13 PJI were age-matched (based on the 139 THA PJI treated) with 15 THA PJI (mean age of 53 years old (47–58) for THA and 59 (45–66) for RSA (p=0.34)). We compared their survival (absence of infectious recurrence) and the means differences between the 2 groups (demographical, clinical and biological data). There was no difference between the 2 groups concerning: age (p=0.3), BMI (p=0.4), initial diagnosis (p=0.4), operating time for primary surgery (p=0.3), the presence of a postoperative hematoma (p=0.4), the type of bacteria (p=0.5), the total duration of antibiotic therapy (p=0.9) and the type of antibiotic therapy (p=0.6). Early postoperative infections (less than 6 weeks) occurred in 7/13 RSA cases (54%) compared to 11/15 THA cases (73%). At the mean follow-up of 5 years (2–7), the success rate without recurrence was significantly higher in the RSA group 100% versus 66.7% (10/15) for the THA group (p=0.044). At the last follow-up, the Oxford Hip Score was higher in the RSA versus THA group's (14 versus 22 p=0.004). Simple surgical debridement an RSA without changing implants after PJI can be done regardless of the time to onset of infection. This is secondary to the absence of metaphyseal bone invasion and the low content of joint fluid

Aims. The aim of this study was to estimate time to arthroplasty among patients with hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA), and to identify factors at enrolment to first-line intervention that are prognostic for progression to surgery. Methods. In this longitudinal register-based observational study, we identified 72,069 patients with hip and knee OA in the Better Management of Patients with Osteoarthritis Register (BOA), who were referred for first-line OA intervention, between May 2008 and December 2016. Patients were followed until the first primary arthroplasty surgery before 31 December 2016, stratified into a hip and a knee OA cohort. Data were analyzed with Kaplan-Meier and multivariable-adjusted Cox regression. Results. At five years, Kaplan-Meier estimates showed that 46% (95% confidence interval (CI) 44.6 to 46.9) of those with hip OA, and 20% (95% CI 19.7 to 21.0) of those with knee OA, had progressed to arthroplasty. The strongest prognostic factors were desire for surgery (hazard ratio (HR) hip 3.12 (95% CI 2.95 to 3.31), HR knee 2.72 (95% CI 2.55 to 2.90)), walking difficulties (HR hip 2.20 (95% CI 1.97 to 2.46), HR knee 1.95 (95% CI 1.73 to 2.20)), and frequent pain (HR hip 1.56 (95% CI 1.40 to 1.73), HR knee 1.77 (95% CI 1.58 to 2.00)). In hip OA, the probability of progression to surgery was lower among those with comorbidities (e.g. ≥ four conditions; HR 0.64 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.69)), with no detectable effects in the knee OA cohort. Instead, being overweight or obese increased the probability of OA progress in the knee cohort (HR 1.25 (95% CI 1.15 to 1.37)), but not among those with hip OA. Conclusion. Patients with hip OA progressed faster and to a greater extent to arthroplasty than patients with knee OA. Progression was strongly influenced by patients’ desire for surgery and by factors related to severity of OA symptoms, but factors not directly related to OA symptoms are also of importance. However, a large proportion of patients with OA do not seem to require surgery within five years, especially among those with knee OA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(7):792–800

Aims. Hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) is typically indicated for young and active patients. Due to the longevity of arthroplasty, these patients are likely to undergo revision surgery during their lifetime. There is a paucity of information on the long-term outcome of revision surgeries performed after failed HRA. The aim of our study was to provide survivorship data as well as clinical scores after HRA revisions. Methods. A total of 42 patients (43 hips) were revised after HRA at our centre to a variety of devices, including four HRA and 39 total hip arthroplasties (THAs). In addition to perioperative complications, University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) hip scores and 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey questionnaire (SF-12) quality of life scores were collected at follow-up visits after the primary HRA and after revision surgery. Results. The mean follow-up time after revision surgery was 8.3 years (0.3 to 19.1). The mean UCLA pain and function scores post-revision were comparable with the best scores achieved by the patients after the index HRA, but UCLA activity scores were lower after revision. SF-12 physical component scores were comparable between timepoints, but the mental component score decreased after revision. Six patients underwent unilateral re-revision surgery at a mean follow-up time of 7.8 years (0.3 to 13.7). Using the time to any re-revision as endpoint, the Kaplan-Meier survivorship was 85.3% at 13 years. Conclusion. Patients undergoing revision after HRA can expect to achieve function and quality of life similar to their best after their primary surgery, while the risk of re-revision is low. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(10):1289–1296

Aims. To compare the functional outcome, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and satisfaction of patients who underwent primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) and a single debridement, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR) procedure for deep infection, using either the transgluteal or the posterior surgical approach for both procedures. Methods. The study was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (ID: NCT03161990) on 15 May 2017. Patients treated with a single DAIR procedure for deep infection through the same operative approach as their primary THA (either the transgluteal or the posterior approach) were identified in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register and given a questionnaire. Median follow-up after DAIR by questionnaire was 5.5 years in the transgluteal group (n = 87) and 2.5 years in the posterior approach group (n = 102). Results. Patients in the posterior approach group were less likely to limp after the DAIR procedure (17% vs 36% limped all the time; p = 0.005), had a higher mean Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) function score (80 vs 71; p = 0.013), and were more likely to achieve a patient acceptable symptom state for the WOMAC function score (76% vs 55%; p = 0.002). In a multivariable analysis, the point estimate for the increase in WOMAC function score using the posterior approach was 10.2 (95% CI 3.1 to 17.2; p = 0.005), which is above the minimal clinically important improvement. The patients in the posterior approach group also reported better mean HRQoL scores and were more likely to be satisfied with their hip arthroplasty (77% vs 55%; p = 0.001). Conclusion. In patients treated with a single, successful DAIR procedure for deep infection of a primary THA, the use of the posterior approach in both primary surgery and DAIR was associated with less limping, better functional outcome, better HRQoL, and higher patient satisfaction compared with cases where both were performed using the transgluteal approach. The observed differences in functional outcome and patient satisfaction were clinically relevant. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(12):1662–1669

Introduction. The rise of the anterior approach (AA) in primary surgery has led to enthusiasm for using this approach in revision surgery, especially because head and liner exchanges have been accompanied by a high dislocation rate when the posterior approach (PA) is used. The aim of this study was to compare the institutional dislocation rate comparing the PA and AA in isolated head and liner exchange. Methods. A retrospective institutional database query was done to identify all aseptic head and liner exchanges between the years 2010- June, 2020. 186 hips were identified with an average age of 64.8+/−10.8 yrs (27.9–87.6) and average BMI of 28.7+/−6.3 kg/m2 (16.2–52). The reason for revision was polyethylene wear and osteolysis in 105 hips (56.5%), adverse tissue reaction to metal on metal (MOM) in 43 hips (23.1%), and recurrent instability in 38 hips (20.4%). The approach used for the revision surgery was PA in 128 hips (68.8%) and AA in 58 hips (31.2%). The mean follow-up for this cohort is 1.9±2 yrs (0.0–8.6). Results. The overall dislocation rate for the entire cohort was 28/186 (15%). There was no difference in the dislocation rate whether the revision surgery was performed by the PA 19/128 (15%) or the AA 9/58 (16%) (p=0.9). With the numbers available, there was no difference in dislocation rates when comparing reason for revision: poly wear/osteolysis 12/105 (11%), MOM 8/43 (19%) or recurrent instability 8/38 (21%) (p=0.28). The head size used in the exchange did not influence the dislocation rate; 28 mm-2/11 (18%), 32 mm-6/56 (11%), 36 mm-16/91 (18%), 40 mm-4/26 (15%) (p=0.89). Conclusion. The use of either the PA or AA did not alter the dislocation rate in our cohort. While there was a trend towards a higher dislocation rate when liner exchange was performed for MOM or recurrent instability, no statistical difference was shown with the numbers available. The head size used in the revision did not influence the rate of dislocation

Aims

The Exeter V40 femoral stem is the most implanted stem in the National Joint Registry (NJR) for primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). In 2004, the 44/00/125 stem was released for use in ‘cement-in-cement’ revision cases. It has, however, been used ‘off-label’ as a primary stem when patient anatomy requires a smaller stem with a 44 mm offset. We aimed to investigate survival of this implant in comparison to others in the range when used in primary THAs recorded in the NJR.

Aims

The aims of this study were to determine if an increasing serum cobalt (Co) and/or chromium (Cr) concentration is correlated with a decreasing Harris Hip Score (HHS) and Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS) in patients who received the Articular Surface Replacement (ASR) hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA), and to evaluate the ten-year revision rate and show if sex, inclination angle, and Co level influenced the revision rate.

Background. One of the potential complications of polyethylene liner (PL) is its dissociation from the metal shell. This is a rare but catastrophic complication of total hip replacement (THR). Objective. was to analyze the retrieved dissociated components (PL and shell) (Depuy Pinnacle, Warsaw, IN, USA) to evaluate the mechanism of failure. All these components were dissociated within four years of implantation. Methods. Components were retrieved from three different centers in Canada over the period from January 2011 to October 2016. The analysis was done at the Orthopaedic Innovation Centre (OIC) in Winnipeg Canada. Nine PLs were retrieved at the time of revision THR. Assessment using optical and scanning electron microscopies at magnification between 25× and 150× was performed. The following questions were asked: 1) were the liners correctly seated at the primary surgery? 2) Are there signs of impingement present which could have caused the liner to become dissociated? 3) Does the wear pattern indicate that the liner was failing prior to dissociation?. Results. All PLs dissociated in the inferior direction. Five PL were believed to have been seated properly at the time of indexed surgery. All PL displayed signs of post dissociation impingement. Only 1 PL had fractured resulting in failure prior to dissociation. Other PL showed signs of wear, however none of them reached thinness that would be a cause for concern. Eight PLs demonstrated shearing of the anti rotation tabs. Assessment of the anti rotation tabs revealed that a couple had sheared off suddenly while remaining anti rotation tabs sheared off in progressive fatigue resulting in the failure of the locking mechanism. Conclusions. Retrieval analysis was useful in identifying common patterns of failure such as anti-rotation tab damage. This was suggestive that the locking mechanism of the acetabular components has probably failed in 8 out of 9 of the retrieved liners

Aims

The burden of revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) continues to grow. The surgery is complex and associated with significant costs. Regional rTHA networks have been proposed to improve outcomes and to reduce re-revisions, and therefore costs. The aim of this study was to accurately quantify the cost and reimbursement for a rTHA service, and to assess the financial impact of case complexity at a tertiary referral centre within the NHS.

Aims

The number of revision arthroplasties being performed in the elderly is expected to rise, including revision for infection. The primary aim of this study was to measure the treatment success rate for octogenarians undergoing revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) compared to a younger cohort. Secondary outcomes were complications and mortality.

Aims

Femoral cement-in-cement revision is a well described technique to reduce morbidity and complications in hip revision surgery. Traditional techniques for septic revision of hip arthroplasty necessitate removal of all bone cement from the femur. In our two centres, we have been using a cement-in-cement technique, leaving the distal femoral bone cement in selected patients for septic hip revision surgery, both for single and the first of two-stage revision procedures. A prerequisite for adoption of this technique is that the surgeon considers the cement mantle to be intimately fixed to bone without an intervening membrane between cement and host bone. We aim to report our experience for this technique.

Introduction. Studies are being done comparing 1-stage vs. 2-stage protocols for PJI. 1-stage protocols take an extended period of time requiring 2 separate preps and sets of instruments in order to ensure optimal sterility. While intraoperative service time is one part of the reimbursement algorithm, reimbursement has lagged behind for single stage treatment. If 1-stage results are acceptable, but not reimbursed appropriately, surgeons may be discouraged from managing PJI in a 1-stage fashion. We ask, “What is the reimbursement and intraoperative service time for 1-stage procedures compared to primary surgery?”. Methods. Relative Value Unit's (RVU's), reimbursement and operative time for 50 PJI procedures were reviewed and compared to 250 primary (1°) THA and 250 primary (1°) TKA by four surgeons. Coding was done per AAOS guidelines. Results. Average work RVU's for 1-stage knees were 19.79 RVU's/hr. vs 23.47 for 1° TKA. Average reimbursement for a 1-stage knee was $2,597.08, with an average intraoperative service time of 259 minutes ($601.60/hr.). Average reimbursement for a 1° TKA was $2,435.00, with an average service time of 100 minutes ($1,461/ hr.). Average work RVU's for a 1-stage hip were 19.57/hr. vs 25.59 for a 1° THA. Average reimbursement for a 1-stage hip was $2,826.17, with an average intraoperative service time of 311 minutes ($545.24/ hr.). The average reimbursement for a 1° total hip was $2,754.71 with an average service time of 104 minutes ($1,589.26/ hr.). Conclusion. While RVUs/hr are similar between primaries and 1-stage procedures, 1-stage procedures for PJI are reimbursed at approximately 1/3 the hourly rate of a primary procedure. This may discourage surgeons from selecting this treatment alternative if studies confirm efficacy. Payers should be encouraged to reimburse physicians commensurate with the intraoperative service time needed to perform a 1-stage procedure as adoption will decrease morbidity and save the healthcare system financially

Aims

Femoral bone preparation using compaction technique has been shown to preserve bone and improve implant fixation in animal models. No long-term clinical outcomes are available. There are no significant long-term differences between compaction and broaching techniques for primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) in terms of migration, clinical, and radiological outcomes.

Aims

To find out if there is an inverse association between estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and whole blood cobalt (Co) and chromium (Cr) levels in patients with metal-on-metal (MoM) hip arthroplasties and renal insufficiency, suggesting that renal insufficiency could cause accumulation of Co and Cr in blood.

Aims

The Exeter V40 cemented polished tapered stem system has demonstrated excellent long-term outcomes. This paper presents a systematic review of the existing literature and reports on a large case series comparing implant fractures between the Exeter V40 series; 125 mm and conventional length stem systems.

Aims

The aim of this study was to determine whether fixation, as opposed to revision arthroplasty, can be safely used to treat reducible Vancouver B type fractures in association with a cemented collarless polished tapered femoral stem (the Exeter).