Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is an effective treatment for symptomatic hip osteoarthritis (OA). While computer-navigation technologies in total knee arthroplasty show survivorship advantages and are widely used, comparable applications within THA show far lower utilisation. Using national registry data, this study compared patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) in patients who underwent THA with and without computer navigation. Data from Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) PROMs program included all primary THA procedures performed for OA up to 31 December 2020. Procedures using the Intellijoint HIP® navigation system were identified and compared to procedures using other computer navigation systems or conventional instrumentation only. Changes in PROM scores between pre-operative and 6-month post-operative time points were analysed using multiple regression model, adjusting for pre-operative score, patient age, gender, ASA score, BMI, surgical approach, and hospital type. There were 65 primary THA procedures that used the Intellijoint HIP® system, 90 procedures used other types of computer navigation, and the remaining 5,284 primary THA procedures used conventional instrumentation. The estimated mean changes in the EuroQol visual analogue scale (EQ VAS) score and Oxford Hip score did not differ significantly when Intellijoint® was compared to conventional instruments (estimated differences of 2.4, 95% CI [-1.7, 6.5], p = 0.245, and −0.5, 95% CI [-2.5, 1.4], p = 0.592, respectively). The proportion of patients who were satisfied with their procedure was also similar when Intellijoint® was compared to conventional instruments (rate ratio 1.06, 95% CI [0.97, 1.16], p = 0.227). The preliminary data demonstrate no significant difference in PROMs when comparing the Intellijoint HIP® THA navigation system with both other navigation systems and conventional instrumentation for primary THAs performed for OA.
Strategy regarding patella resurfacing in total knee replacement (TKR) remains controversial. TKR revision rates are reportedly influenced by surgeon procedure volume. The study aim was to compare revision outcomes of TKR with and without patella resurfacing in different surgeon volume groups using data from the AOANJRR. The study population included 571,149 primary TKRs for osteoarthritis. Surgeons were classified as low, medium, or high-volume based on the quartiles of mean primary TKR volume between 2011 and 2020. Cumulative percent revision (CPR) using Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship were calculated for the three surgeon volume groups with and without patella resurfacing. Cox proportional hazards models, adjusted for age and sex, were used to compare revision risks. High-volume surgeons who did not resurface the patella had the highest all-cause CPR (20-year CPR 10.9%, 95% CI [10.0%, 12.0%]). When the patella was resurfaced, high-volume surgeons had the lowest revision rate (7.3%, 95% CI [6.4%, 8.4%]). When the high-volume groups were compared there was a higher rate of revision for the non-resurfaced group after 6 months. When the medium-volume surgeon groups were compared, not resurfacing the patella also was associated with a higher rate of revision after 3 months. The low-volume comparisons showed an initial higher rate of revision with patella resurfacing, but there was no difference after 3 months. When only patella revisions were considered, there were higher rates of revision in all three volume groups where the patella was not resurfaced. TKR performed by high and medium-volume surgeons without patella resurfacing had higher revision rates compared to when the patella was resurfaced. Resurfacing the patella in the primary procedure protected against revision for patella reasons in all surgeon volume groups.
Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is an effective treatment for symptomatic hip osteoarthritis (OA). Computer-navigation technologies in total knee arthroplasty show evidence-supported survivorship advantages and are used widely. The aim of this study was to determine the revision outcome of hip commercially available navigation technologies. Data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry from January 2016 to December 2020 included all primary THA procedures performed for osteoarthritis (OA). Procedures using the Intellijoint HIP® navigation were identified and compared to procedures inserted using ‘other’ computer navigation systems and to all non-navigated procedures. The cumulative percent revision (CPR) was compared between the three groups using Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship and hazard ratios (HR) from Cox proportional hazards models, adjusted for age and gender. A prosthesis specific analysis was also performed. There were 1911 procedures that used the Intellijoint® system, 4081 used ‘other’ computer navigation, and 160,661 were non-navigated. The all-cause 2-year CPR rate for the Intellijoint HIP® system was 1.8% (95% CI 1.2, 2.6), compared to 2.2% (95% CI 1.8, 2.8) for other navigated and 2.2% (95% CI 2.1, 2.3) for non-navigated cases. A prosthesis specific analysis identified the Paragon/Acetabular Shell THAs combined with the Intellijoint HIP® system as having a higher (3.4%) rate of revision than non-navigated THAs (HR = 2.00 (1.01, 4.00), p=0.048). When this outlier combination was excluded, the Intellijoint® system group demonstrated a two-year CPR of 1.3%. There was no statistical difference in the CPR between the three groups before or after excluding Paragon/Acetabular Shell system. The preliminary data presented demonstrate no statistical difference in all cause revision rates when comparing the Intellijoint HIP® THA navigation system with ‘other’ navigation systems and ‘non-navigated’ approaches for primary THAs performed for OA. The current sample size remains too small to permit meaningful subgroup statistical comparisons.
