Aims. The aim of this study was to conduct a cross-sectional, observational cohort study of patients presenting for revision of a total hip, or total or unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, to understand current routes to revision surgery and explore differences in symptoms, healthcare use, reason for revision, and the revision surgery (surgical time, components, length of stay) between patients having regular follow-up and those without. Methods. Data were collected from participants and medical records for the 12 months prior to revision. Patients with previous revision, metal-on-metal articulations, or hip hemiarthroplasty were excluded. Participants were retrospectively classified as ‘Planned’ or ‘Unplanned’ revision. Multilevel regression and propensity score matching were used to compare the two groups. Results. Data were analyzed from 568 patients, recruited in 38 UK secondary care sites between October 2017 and October 2018 (43.5% male; mean (SD) age 71.86 years (9.93); 305 hips, 263 knees). No significant inclusion differences were identified between the two groups. For hip revision, time to revision > ten years (odds ratio (OR) 3.804, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.353 to 10.694), p = 0.011), periprosthetic fracture (OR 20.309, 95% CI (4.574 to 90.179), p < 0.001), and dislocation (OR 12.953, 95% CI (4.014 to 41.794), p < 0.001), were associated with unplanned revision. For knee, there were no associations with route to revision. Revision after ten years was more likely for those who were younger at primary surgery, regardless of route to revision. No significant differences in cost outcomes, length of surgery time, and access to a health professional in the year prior to revision were found between the two groups. When periprosthetic fractures, dislocations, and infections were excluded, healthcare use was significantly higher in the unplanned revision group. Conclusion. Differences between characteristics for patients presenting for planned and unplanned revision are minimal. Although there was greater healthcare use in those having unplanned revision, it appears unlikely that routine orthopaedic review would have detected many of these issues. It may be safe to disinvest in standard follow-up provided there is rapid access to orthopaedic review. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(1):59–67

Between 1988 and 1998 we implanted 318 total hip replacements (THRs) in 287 patients using the Plasmacup (B. Braun Ltd, Sheffield, United Kingdom) and a conventional metal-on-polyethylene articulation. The main indications for THR were primary or secondary osteoarthritis. At follow-up after a mean 11.6 years (7.6 to 18.4) 17 patients had died and 20 could not be traced leaving a final series of 280 THRs in 250 patients. There were 62 revisions (22.1%) in 59 patients. A total of 43 acetabular shells (15.4%) had been revised and 13 (4.6%) had undergone exchange of the liner. The most frequent indications for revision were osteolysis and aseptic loosening, followed by polyethylene wear. The mean Kaplan-Meier survival of the Plasmacup was 91% at ten years and 58% at 14 years. Osteolysis was found around 36 (17.1%) of the 211 surviving shells. The median annual rate of linear wear in the surviving shells was 0.12 mm/year and 0.25 mm/year in those which had been revised (p < 0.001). Polyethylene wear was a strong independent risk factor for osteolysis and aseptic loosening. The percentage of patients with osteolysis increased proportionately with each quintile of wear-rate. There is a high late rate of failure of the Plasmacup. Patients with the combination of this prosthesis and bearing should be closely monitored after ten years

Aims

The primary aim of this study was to compare the wear properties of vitamin E-diffused, highly crosslinked polyethylene (VEPE) and one formulation of moderately crosslinked and mechanically annealed ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (ModXLPE) in patients five years after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). The secondary aim was to assess the clinical results of patients treated with VEPE by evaluating patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), radiological evidence of fixation, and the incidence of mechanical failure.

The aim of this study was to define return to theatre (RTT) rates for elective hip and knee replacement (HR and KR), to describe the predictors and to show the variations in risk-adjusted rates by surgical team and hospital using national English hospital administrative data.

We examined information on 260 206 HRs and 315 249 KRs undertaken between April 2007 and March 2012. The 90-day RTT rates were 2.1% for HR and 1.8% for KR. Male gender, obesity, diabetes and several other comorbidities were associated with higher odds for both index procedures. For HR, hip resurfacing had half the odds of cement fixation (OR = 0.58, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.47 to 0.71). For KR, unicondylar KR had half the odds of total replacement (OR = 0.49, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.56), and younger ages had higher odds (OR = 2.23, 95% CI 1.65 to 3.01) for ages < 40 years compared with ages 60 to 69 years). There were more funnel plot outliers at three standard deviations than would be expected if variation occurred on a random basis.

Hierarchical modelling showed that three-quarters of the variation between surgeons for HR and over half the variation between surgeons for KR are not explained by the hospital they operated at or by available patient factors. We conclude that 90-day RTT rate may be a useful quality indicator for orthopaedics.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014; 96-B:1663–8.