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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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