The current recommendation in Norway is to use four doses of a first-generation cephalosporin (cefazolin or cephalotin) as systemic antibiotic prophylaxis (SAP) the day of surgery in primary joint arthroplasty. Due to shortage of supply, scientific development, changed courses of treatment and improved antibiotic stewardship, this recommendation has been disputed. We therefore wanted to assess if one dose of SAP was non-inferior to four doses in preventing periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in primary joint arthroplasty. We included patients with primary hip- and knee arthroplasties from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register and the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register for the period 2005-2023. We included the most used SAPs (cephalotin, cefazolin, cefuroxime, cloxacillin and clindamycin), administered as the only SAP in 1-4 doses, starting preoperatively. Risk of revision (Hazard rate ratio; HRR) for PJI was estimated by Cox regression analyses with adjustment for sex, age, ASA class, duration of surgery, reason for- and type of arthroplasty, and year of primary arthroplasty. The outcome was 1-year reoperation or revision for PJI. Non-inferiority margins were calculated for 1, 2 and 3 doses versus reference of 4 doses of SAP at the day of surgery, against a predetermined limit of 15% increased risk of PJI.Aim
Method
Previous publications have reported an increased but levelling out risk of revision for infection after total hip arthroplasty (THA) in Norway. We assessed the changes in risk of major (cup and/or stem, 1- or 2-stage) and minor revisions (debridement, exchange of modular parts, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR)) for infection after primary THAs reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register (NAR) over the period 2005-2022. Primary THAs reported to the NAR from 2005 to 2022 were included. Time was stratified into time periods (2005-2009, 2010-2018, 2019-2022) based on a previous publication. Cox regression analyses, adjusted for sex, age and ASA-classification, with the first revision for infection were performed.Background and purpose
Patients and methods
The Norwegian Arthroplasty Register (NAR) started collecting data on total hip arthroplasty (THA) in 1987. Very long-term results of implants for THA are scarce. We aimed to show long-term results for the three most used femoral stems, operated from 1987. We included the uncemented Corail femoral stem (n=66,309) and the cemented Exeter stem (n=35,050) both of which are currently in frequent use. In addition, we included the Charnley stem (n=32,578, in use until 2014). To ensure comparable conditions, stems fixated with low viscosity cement and stems revised due to infections were excluded. Differences in risk of revision (all reasons and stem revisions) were assessed with Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses with adjustment for possible confounding from age, sex and diagnosis (OA, other). Stem revision was defined as a revision caused by loosening of the stem, dislocation, osteolysis in the femur, or periprosthetic femur fracture, and in which the femoral component was removed or exchanged. The median and max follow-up for Corail, Exeter and Charnley were 6.3 (33.1), 8.0 (34.2) and 13.1 (34.3) respectively. Thirty years survival estimates for Corail, Exeter and Charnley stems were 88.6% (CI:85.8–90.9%), 86.7% (83.7–89.2%) and 87.1% (85.4–88.5%) respectively with stem revision as endpoint, and 56.1% (CI:53.1–59.1%), 73.3% (70.5–76.1%) and 80.2% (78.4–82.0%) with all THA revisions as endpoint. Compared to the Corail, the Exeter (HRR=1.3, CI:1.2–1.4) and the Charnley (HRR=1.9, CI:1.7–2.1) had a significant higher risk of stem revision. Women 75 years and older had better results with the cemented stems. Analyses accounting for competing risk from other causes of revision did not alter the findings. The uncemented Corail stem performed well in terms of stem revisions for stem-related revision causes compared to two frequently used cemented stems with very long follow-up. The differences between the three stems were small.
Previous publications have suggested that the incidence of revisions due to infection after THA is increasing. We performed updated time-trend analyses of risk and timing of revision due to infection after primary THAs in the Nordic countries during the period 2004–2018. 569,463 primary THAs reported to the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association from 2004 through 2018 were studied. We estimated adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) with 95% confidence interval by Cox regression with the first revision due to infection after primary THA as endpoint. The risk of revision was investigated. In addition, we explored changes in the time span from primary THA to revision due to infection.Aim
Methods
In recent years, many studies on We investigated the reported Aim
Methods
Young patients are at increased risk of revision after primary THA (THA). The bearing surface may be of importance for the longevity of the joint. We aimed to compare the risk of revision of primary stemmed cementless THA with MoM and CoC with metal-on-highly-crosslinked-polyethylene (MoXLP) bearings in patients between 20–54 years. From NARA, we included 2,153 MoM, 4,120 CoC and 10,329 MoXLP THA operated between 1995 and 2017. Kaplan-Meier estimator was used for calculation of THA survivorship and Cox regression to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) of revision (95% CI) due to any and specific causes. MoXLP was reference. The median follow-up was 10.3 years for MoM, 6.6 years for CoC and 4.8 years for MoXLP. 15 years postoperatively the Kaplan-Meier survival estimates were 80% (78–83%) for MoM, 92% (91–93%) for CoC and 94% (93–95%) for MoXLP. The 0–2, 2–7 and 7–15 years adjusted HRs of revision by any cause were 1.4 (0.9–2.4), 3.2 (2.1–5.1) and 3.9 (1.9–7.9) for MoM and 1.1 (0.8–1.4), 1.0 (0.7–1.3) and 2.5 (1.3–4.8) for CoC bearings. After 7–15 years follow-up, the unadjusted HR of revision due to aseptic loosening was 5.4 (1.2–24) for MoM and 4.2 (0.9–20) for CoC THA. MoM and CoC had a 7–15 year adjusted HR of revision due to ‘other’ causes of 4.8 (1.6–14) and 2.1 (0.8–5.8). MoXLP bearings were associated with better survival than MoM and CoC bearings, mainly because of lower risk of revision due to aseptic loosening and ‘other’ causes.
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. 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).Aims
Methods
The aim of this study was to assess the influence of the true operating room (OR) ventilation on the risk of revision due to infection after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register (NAR). 40 orthopedic units were included during the period 2005 – 2015. The Unidirectional airflow (UDAF) systems were subdivided into small-area, low-volume, vertical UDAF (lvUDAF) (volume flow rate (VFR) (m3/hour) <=10,000 and diffuser array size (DAS) (m2) <=10); large-area, high-volume, vertical UDAF (hvUDAF) (VFR >=10,000 and DAS >=10) and Horizontal UDAF (H-UDAF). The systems were compared to conventional, turbulent ventilation (CV) systems. The association between revision due to infection and OR ventilation was assessed using Cox regression models, with adjustments for sex, age, indication for surgery, ASA-classification, method of fixation, modularity of the components, duration of surgery, in addition to year of primary THA. All included THAs received systemic, antibiotic prophylaxis.Aim
Method
Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after knee arthroplasty surgery remains a serious complication. Yet, there is no international consensus on the surgical treatment of PJI. The purpose was to assess the prosthesis survival rates, risk of re-revision, and mortality rate following the different surgical strategies (1-stage or 2-stage implant revision, and irrigation and debridement (IAD) with implant retention) used to treat PJI. The study was based on 653 total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) revised due to PJI in the period 1994 to 2016. Kaplan-Meier (KM) and multiple Cox regression analyses were performed to assess the survival rate of these revisions and the risk of re-revisions. We also studied the mortality rates at 90 days and 1 year after revision for PJI.Background
Methods
Periprosthetic osteolysis resulting in aseptic loosening is a leading cause for total hip arthroplasty (THA) failure. Individuals vary in their susceptibility to osteolysis, and it is thought that heritable factors contribute to this variation. We conducted two genome-wide association studies to identify genetic risk loci associated with osteolysis and genetic risk loci associated with time to prosthesis failure due to osteolysis. The Norway cohort comprised 2,624 subjects after THA recruited from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Registry, 779 with revision surgery for osteolysis. The UK cohort comprised 890 subjects recruited from hospitals in the north of England, 317 with radiographic evidence or revision surgery for osteolysis. All subjects had received a fully cemented or hybrid THA using small-diameter metal or ceramic-on-conventional polyethylene bearing. Osteolysis susceptibility case-control analyses and quantitative trait analyses for time to prosthesis failure were undertaken after genome-wide genotyping. Finally, a meta-analysis of the discovery datasets was undertaken.Introduction
Patients/Materials & Methods
There is an ongoing discussion on what bearing surfaces to use in different age groups of total hip replacement patients. We report results from uncemented total hip arthroplasty using ceramic on ceramic bearings reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register in the period 1997–2014. Kaplan Meier and Cox regression analysis adjusting for age, gender and diagnosis was used to assess prosthesis survival at 10 and 15 years after primary operation and to report relative risk of revision. Endpoint was any revision. Comparison with the cemented Charnley prosthesis (n=17180), with metal-on-polyethylene articulations from the same time period was done. Results in age groups <55, 55–64, 65–74, >=75 were investigated. The following femur/cup combinations were used; Filler/Igloo (n=2590), Corail/Pinnacle (n=783), Corail/Duraloc (n=467), SCP Unique/Trilogy (n=363), Polar/R3 (n=253), ABGII/ABGII (n=131), other combinations (n=339). Alumina bearing was used in 3807 hips and Alumina-Zirconium composite bearings in 1119 hips. The overall ten and fifteen years unadjusted Kaplan Meier survivals were 94.8 % and 92.0 % respectively with no statistically significant difference between the brands. The cemented Charnley hip arthroplasty had 93.6 % survival at 15 years, and was not statistically significant different from the uncemented ceramic/ceramic group. The 10 years survival in the age groups <55, 55–64, 65–74, >=75 for the uncemented ceramic/ceramic group was 93.7%, 95.3%, 96.0% and 95.4% respectively with no difference between the uncemented brands and the cemented Charnley prosthesis. We found less revisions in patients >=75 in the Charnley group. In the ceramic on ceramic group 11 head fractures and 3 liner fractures were reported. The 15 years result of uncemented hip replacement with ceramic on ceramic bearing was good, and not different from the Charnley cemented arthroplasty in the age groups <75 years.
To see what surgical strategy was used in treating infected total hip arthroplasties (THA), relative to bacterial findings, level of inflammation, length of antibiotic treatment (AB) and re-revisions. Further, to assess the results of treatment after three months and one year. We used our national arthroplasty register (NAR) to identify THA revised for deep infection from 2004–2015 reported from our hospital. We identified the strategy of revision, i.e. one-stage exchange (one-stage), two-stage exchange (two-stage), debridement and implant retention (DAIR), or Girdlestone, and reported re-revisions for infection. We defined cure as no AB, no need for further surgery and joint with prosthesis (not Girdlestone). From the hospitals’ medical records we retrieved bacterial findings from the revisions, level of C-reactive protein (CRP), type of antibiotics given, duration of antibiotic therapy and clinical data regarding the patients. The information reported to the NAR was also validated.Aim
Method
We report the five-year outcome of a randomised
controlled trial which used radiostereometric analysis (RSA) to assess
the influence of surface oxidised zirconium (OxZr, Oxinium) on polyethylene
wear A total of 120 patients, 85 women and 35 men with a mean age
of 70 years (59 to 80) who were scheduled for primary cemented total
hip arthroplasty were randomly allocated to four study groups. Patients
were blinded to their group assignment and received either a conventional
polyethylene (CPE) or a highly cross-linked (HXL) acetabular component
of identical design. On the femoral side patients received a 28
mm head made of either cobalt-chromium (CoCr) or OxZr. The proximal head penetration (wear) was measured with repeated
RSA examinations over five years. Clinical outcome was measured
using the Harris hip score. There was no difference in polyethylene wear between the two
head materials when used with either of the two types of acetabular
component (p = 0.3 to 0.6). When comparing the two types of polyethylene
there was a significant difference in favour of HXLPE, regardless
of the head material used (p <
0.001). In conclusion, we found no advantage of OxZr over CoCr in terms
of polyethylene wear after five years of follow-up. Our findings
do not support laboratory results which have shown a reduced rate
of wear with OxZr. They do however add to the evidence on the better
resistance to wear of HXLPE over CPE. Cite this article:
Particulate wear debris with different chemical composition induced similar periprosthetic tissue reactions in patients with loosened uncemented and cemented titanium hip implants, which suggests that osteolysis can develop independent of particle composition. Periprosthetic osteolysis is a serious long-term complication in total hip replacements (THR). Wear debris-induced inflammation is thought to be the main cause for periprosthetic bone loss and implant loosening. The aim of the present study was to compare the tissue reactions and wear debris characteristics in periprosthetic tissues from patients with failed uncemented (UC) and cemented (C) titanium alloy hip prostheses. We hypothesised that implant wear products around two different hip designs induced periprosthetic inflammation leading to osteolysis.Summary
Introduction
We performed a randomised controlled trial comparing
computer-assisted surgery (CAS) with conventional surgery (CONV)
in total knee replacement (TKR). Between 2009 and 2011 a total of
192 patients with a mean age of 68 years (55 to 85) with osteoarthritis
or arthritic disease of the knee were recruited from four Norwegian
hospitals. At three months follow-up, functional results were marginally
better for the CAS group. Mean differences (MD) in favour of CAS
were found for the Knee Society function score (MD: 5.9, 95% confidence
interval (CI) 0.3 to 11.4, p = 0.039), the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis
Outcome Score (KOOS) subscales for ‘pain’ (MD: 7.7, 95% CI 1.7 to
13.6, p = 0.012), ‘sports’ (MD: 13.5, 95% CI 5.6 to 21.4, p = 0.001)
and ‘quality of life’ (MD: 7.2, 95% CI 0.1 to 14.3, p = 0.046).
At one-year follow-up, differences favouring CAS were found for
KOOS ‘sports’ (MD: 11.0, 95% CI 3.0 to 19.0, p = 0.007) and KOOS
‘symptoms’ (MD: 6.7, 95% CI 0.5 to 13.0, p = 0.035). The use of
CAS resulted in fewer outliers in frontal alignment (>
3° malalignment),
both for the entire TKR (37.9% Cite this article:
We welcome letters to the Editor concerning articles
that have recently been published. Such letters will be subject
to the usual stages of selection and editing; where appropriate the
authors of the original article will be offered the opportunity
to reply.
We evaluated the rates of survival and cause
of revision of seven different brands of cemented primary total
knee replacement (TKR) in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register during
the years 1994 to 2009. Revision for any cause, including resurfacing
of the patella, was the primary endpoint. Specific causes of revision
were secondary outcomes. Three posterior cruciate-retaining (PCR) fixed modular-bearing
TKRs, two fixed non-modular bearing PCR TKRs and two mobile-bearing
posterior cruciate-sacrificing TKRs were investigated in a total
of 17 782 primary TKRs. The median follow-up for the implants ranged
from 1.8 to 6.9 years. Kaplan-Meier 10-year survival ranged from
89.5% to 95.3%. Cox’s relative risk (RR) was calculated relative
to the fixed modular-bearing Profix knee (the most frequently used
TKR in Norway), and ranged from 1.1 to 2.6. The risk of revision
for aseptic tibial loosening was higher in the mobile-bearing LCS
Classic (RR 6.8 (95% confidence interval (CI) 3.8 to 12.1)), the
LCS Complete (RR 7.7 (95% CI 4.1 to 14.4)), the fixed modular-bearing
Duracon (RR 4.5 (95% CI 1.8 to 11.1)) and the fixed non-modular
bearing AGC Universal TKR (RR 2.5 (95% CI 1.3 to 5.1)), compared
with the Profix. These implants (except AGC Universal) also had
an increased risk of revision for femoral loosening (RR 2.3
(95% CI 1.1 to 4.8), RR 3.7 (95% CI 1.6 to 8.9), and RR 3.4 (95%
CI 1.1 to 11.0), respectively). These results suggest that aseptic
loosening is related to design in TKR. Cite this article:
Infection after total hip arthroplasty is a severe complication. Controversies still exist as to the use of cemented or uncemented implants in the revision of infected THAs. Based on the data in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register (NAR) we have studied this topic. During the period 2002–2008 45.724 primary THAs were reported to NAR. Out of these 459 were revised due to infection (1,0%). The survival of the revisions with uncemented prostheses were compared to revisions with cemented prostheses with antibiotic loaded cement and to cemented prostheses with plain cement. Only prostheses with the same fixation both in acetabulum and in femur were included in the study. Cox-estimated survival and relative revision risks were calculated with adjustments for differences among groups in gender, type of surgical procedure, type of prosthesis, and age at revision.Introduction
Material and Methods
Using data from the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register,
8639 cemented and 2477 uncemented primary hemiarthroplasties for
displaced fractures of the femoral neck in patients aged > 70 years
were included in a prospective observational study. A total of 218
re-operations were performed after cemented and 128 after uncemented
procedures. Survival of the hemiarthroplasties was calculated using
the Kaplan-Meier method and hazard rate ratios (HRR) for revision
were calculated using Cox regression analyses. At five years the
implant survival was 97% (95% confidence interval (CI) 97 to 97)
for cemented and 91% (95% CI 87 to 94) for uncemented hemiarthroplasties.
Uncemented hemiarthroplasties had a 2.1 times increased risk of
revision compared with cemented prostheses (95% confidence interval
1.7 to 2.6, p < 0.001). The increased risk was mainly caused
by revisions for peri-prosthetic fracture (HRR = 17), aseptic loosening
(HRR = 17), haematoma formation (HRR = 5.3), superficial infection
(HRR = 4.6) and dislocation (HRR = 1.8). More intra-operative complications,
including intra-operative death, were reported for the cemented
hemiarthroplasties. However, in a time-dependent analysis, the HRR
for re-operation in both groups increased as follow-up increased. This study showed that the risk for revision was higher for uncemented
than for cemented hemiarthroplasties.
In this prospective study we studied the effect
of the inclination angle of the acetabular component on polyethylene wear
and component migration in cemented acetabular sockets using radiostereometric
analysis. A total of 120 patients received either a cemented Reflection
All-Poly ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene or a cemented
Reflection All-Poly highly cross-linked polyethylene acetabular
component, combined with either cobalt–chrome or Oxinium femoral
heads. Femoral head penetration and migration of the acetabular
component were assessed with repeated radiostereometric analysis
for two years. The inclination angle was measured on a standard
post-operative anteroposterior pelvic radiograph. Linear regression
analysis was used to determine the relationship between the inclination
angle and femoral head penetration and migration of the acetabular component. We found no relationship between the inclination angle and penetration
of the femoral head at two years’ follow-up (p = 0.9). Similarly,
our data failed to reveal any statistically significant correlation
between inclination angle and migration of these cemented acetabular
components (p = 0.07 to p = 0.9).