Aims. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and bias evaluation of the current literature to create an overview of risk factors for re-revision following revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA). Methods. A systematic search of MEDLINE and Embase was completed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The studies were required to include a population of index rTKAs. Primary or secondary outcomes had to be re-revision. The association between preoperative factors and the effect on the risk for re-revision was also required to be reported by the studies. Results. The search yielded 4,847 studies, of which 15 were included. A majority of the studies were retrospective cohorts or registry studies. In total, 26 significant risk factors for re-revision were identified. Of these, the following risk factors were consistent across multiple studies: age at the time of index revision, male sex, index revision being partial revision, and index revision due to infection. Modifiable risk factors were opioid use, BMI > 40 kg/m. 2. , and anaemia. History of one-stage revision due to infection was associated with the highest risk of re-revision. Conclusion. Overall, 26 risk factors have been associated with an increased risk of re-revision following rTKA. However, various levels of methodological bias were found in the studies. Future studies should ensure valid comparisons by including patients with identical indications and using clear definitions for accurate assessments. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(8):644–651

Aims. This study compares the re-revision rate and mortality following septic and aseptic revision hip arthroplasty (rTHA) in registry data, and compares the outcomes to previously reported data. Methods. This is an observational cohort study using data from the German Arthroplasty Registry (EPRD). A total of 17,842 rTHAs were included, and the rates and cumulative incidence of hip re-revision and mortality following septic and aseptic rTHA were analyzed with seven-year follow-up. The Kaplan-Meier estimates were used to determine the re-revision rate and cumulative probability of mortality following rTHA. Results. The re-revision rate within one year after septic rTHA was 30%, and after seven years was 34%. The cumulative mortality within the first year after septic rTHA was 14%, and within seven years was 40%. After multiple previous hip revisions, the re-revision rate rose to over 40% in septic rTHA. The first six months were identified as the most critical period for the re-revision for septic rTHA. Conclusion. The risk re-revision and reinfection after septic rTHA was almost four times higher, as recorded in the ERPD, when compared to previous meta-analysis. We conclude that it is currently not possible to assume the data from single studies and meta-analysis reflects the outcomes in the ‘real world’. Data presented in meta-analyses and from specialist single-centre studies do not reflect the generality of outcomes as recorded in the ERPD. The highest re-revision rates and mortality are seen in the first six months postoperatively. The optimization of perioperative care through the development of a network of high-volume specialist hospitals is likely to lead to improved outcomes for patients undergoing rTHA, especially if associated with infection. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(6):565–572

Aims. We compared the risks of re-revision and mortality between two-stage and single-stage revision surgeries among patients with infected primary hip arthroplasty. Methods. Patients with a periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of their primary arthroplasty revised with single-stage or two-stage procedure in England and Wales between 2003 and 2014 were identified from the National Joint Registry. We used Poisson regression with restricted cubic splines to compute hazard ratios (HRs) at different postoperative periods. The total number of revisions and re-revisions undergone by patients was compared between the two strategies. Results. In total, 535 primary hip arthroplasties were revised with single-stage procedure (1,525 person-years) and 1,605 with two-stage procedure (5,885 person-years). All-cause re-revision was higher following single-stage revision, especially in the first three months (HR at 3 months = 1.98 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.14 to 3.43), p = 0.009). The risks were comparable thereafter. Re-revision for PJI was higher in the first three postoperative months for single-stage revision and waned with time (HR at 3 months = 1.81 (95% CI 1.22 to 2.68), p = 0.003; HR at 6 months = 1.25 (95% CI 0.71 to 2.21), p = 0.441; HR at 12 months = 0.94 (95% CI 0.54 to 1.63), p = 0.819). Patients initially managed with a single-stage revision received fewer revision operations (mean 1.3 (SD 0.7) vs 2.2 (SD 0.6), p < 0.001). Mortality rates were comparable between these two procedures (29/10,000 person-years vs 33/10,000). Conclusion. The risk of unplanned re-revision was lower following two-stage revision, but only in the early postoperative period. The lower overall number of revision procedures associated with a single-stage revision strategy and the equivalent mortality rates to two-stage revision are reassuring. With appropriate counselling, single-stage revision is a viable option for the treatment of hip PJI. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2023;12(5):321–330

Aims. The aim of this study was to measure the effect of hospital case volume on the survival of revision total knee arthroplasty (RTKA). Methods. This is a retrospective analysis of Scottish Arthroplasty Project data, a nationwide audit which prospectively collects data on all arthroplasty procedures performed in Scotland. The primary outcome was RTKA survival at ten years. The primary explanatory variable was the effect of hospital case volume per year on RTKA survival. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were plotted with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to determine the lifespan of RTKA. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards were used to estimate relative revision risks over time. Hazard ratios (HRs) were reported with 95% CI, and p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results. From 1998 to 2019, 8,301 patients (8,894 knees) underwent RTKA surgery in Scotland (median age at RTKA 70 years (interquartile range (IQR) 63 to 76); median follow-up 6.2 years (IQR 3.0 to 10.2). In all, 4,764 (53.6%) were female, and 781 (8.8%) were treated for infection. Of these 8,894 knees, 957 (10.8%) underwent a second revision procedure. Male sex, younger age at index revision, and positive infection status were associated with need for re-revision. The ten-year survival estimate for RTKA was 87.3% (95% CI 86.5 to 88.1). Adjusting for sex, age, surgeon volume, and indication for revision, high hospital case volume was significantly associated with lower risk of re-revision (HR 0.78 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.94, p < 0.001)). The risk of re-revision steadily declined in centres performing > 20 cases per year; risk reduction was 16% with > 20 cases; 22% with > 30 cases; and 28% with > 40 cases. The lowest level of risk was associated with the highest volume centres. Conclusion. The majority of RTKA in Scotland survive up to ten years. Increasing yearly hospital case volume above 20 cases is independently associated with a significant risk reduction of re-revision. Development of high-volume tertiary centres may lead to an improvement in the overall survival of RTKA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(4):602–609

Aims. We compared the risks of re-revision and mortality between two-stage revision surgery and single-stage revision surgery among patients with infected primary knee arthroplasty. Methods. Patients with a periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of their primary knee arthroplasty, initially revised with a single-stage or a two-stage procedure in England and Wales between 2003 and 2014, were identified from the National Joint Registry. We used Poisson regression with restricted cubic splines to compute hazard ratios (HR) at different postoperative periods. The total number of revisions and re-revisions undergone by patients was compared between the two strategies. Results. A total of 489 primary knee arthroplasties were revised with single-stage procedure (1,390 person-years) and 2,377 with two-stage procedure (8,349 person-years). The adjusted incidence rates of all-cause re-revision and for infection were comparable between these strategies (HR overall five years, 1.15 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87 to 1.52), p = 0.308; HR overall five years, 0.99 (95% CI 0.70 to 1.39), p = 0.949, respectively). Patients initially managed with single-stage revision received fewer revision procedures overall than after two-stage revision (1.2 vs 2.2, p < 0.001). Mortality was lower for single-stage revision between six and 18 months postoperative (HR at six months, 0.51 (95% CI 0.25 to 1.00), p = 0.049 HR at 18 months, 0.33 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.99), p = 0.048) and comparable at other timepoints. Conclusion. The risk of re-revision was similar between single- and two-stage revision for infected primary knee arthroplasty. Single-stage group required fewer revisions overall, with lower or comparable mortality at specific postoperative periods. The single-stage revision is a safe and effective strategy to treat infected knee arthroplasties. There is potential for increased use to reduce the burden of knee PJI for patients, and for the healthcare system. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2022;11(10):690–699

Aims. The aim of this study was to explore the relationship between reason for revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) and outcomes in terms of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Methods. We reviewed a prospective cohort of 647 patients undergoing full or partial rTHA at a single high-volume centre with a minimum of two years’ follow-up. The reasons for revision were classified as: infection; aseptic loosening; dislocation; structural failure; and painful THA for other reasons. PROMs (modified Oxford Hip Score (mOHS), EuroQol five-dimension three-level health questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L) score, and visual analogue scales for pain during rest and activity), complication rates, and failure rates were compared among the groups. Results. The indication for revision influenced PROMs improvement over time. This finding mainly reflected preoperative differences between the groups, but diminished between the first and second postoperative years. Preoperatively, patients revised due to infection and aseptic loosening had a lower mOHS than patients with other indications for revision. Pain scores at baseline were highest in patients being revised for dislocation. Infection and aseptic loosening groups showed marked changes over time in both mOHS and EQ-5D-3L. Overall complications and re-revision rates were 35.4% and 9.7% respectively, with no differences between the groups (p = 0.351 and p = 0.470, respectively). Conclusion. Good outcomes were generally obtained regardless of the reason for revision, with patients having the poorest preoperative scores exhibiting the greatest improvement in PROMs. Furthermore, overall complication and reoperation rates were in line with previous reports and did not differ between different indications for rTHA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(7):859–866

Aims. Isolated acetabular liner exchange with a highly crosslinked polyethylene (HXLPE) component is an option to address polyethylene wear and osteolysis following total hip arthroplasty (THA) in the presence of a well-fixed acetabular shell. The liner can be fixed either with the original locking mechanism or by being cemented within the acetabular component. Whether the method used for fixation of the HXLPE liner has any bearing on the long-term outcomes is still unclear. Methods. Data were retrieved for all patients who underwent isolated acetabular component liner exchange surgery with a HXLPE component in our institute between August 2000 and January 2015. Patients were classified according to the fixation method used (original locking mechanism (n = 36) or cemented (n = 50)). Survival and revision rates were compared. A total of 86 revisions were performed and the mean duration of follow-up was 13 years. Results. A total of 20 patients (23.3%) had complications, with dislocation alone being the most common (8.1%; 7/86). Ten patients (11.6%) required re-revision surgery. Cementing the HXLPE liner (8.0%; 4/50) had a higher incidence of re-revision due to acetabular component liner-related complications than using the original locking mechanism (0%; 0/36; p = 0.082). Fixation using the original locking mechanism was associated with re-revision due to acetabular component loosening (8.3%; 3/36), compared to cementing (0%; 0/50; p = 0.038). Overall estimated mean survival was 19.2 years. There was no significant difference in the re-revision rate between the original locking mechanism (11.1%; 4/36) and cementing (12.0%; 6/50; p = 0.899). Using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, the revision-free survival of HXLPE fixed with the original locking mechanism and cementing was 94.1% and 93.2%, respectively, at ten years, and 84.7% and 81.3%, respectively, at 20 years (p = 0.840). Conclusion. The re-revision rate and the revision-free survival following acetabular component liner exchange revision surgery using the HXLPE liner were not influenced by the fixation technique used. Both techniques were associated with good survival at a mean follow-up of 13 years. Careful patient selection is necessary for isolated acetabular component liner exchange revision surgery in order to achieve the best outcomes. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(5 Supple B):59–65

Aims. Compared with primary total hip arthroplasty (THA), revision surgery can be challenging. The cement-in-cement femoral revision technique involves removing a femoral component from a well-fixed femoral cement mantle and cementing a new stem into the original mantle. This technique is widely used and when carried out for the correct indications, is fast, relatively inexpensive and carries a reduced short-term risk for the patient compared with the alternative of removing well-fixed cement. We report the outcomes of this procedure when two commonly used femoral stems are used. Patients and Methods. We identified 1179 cement-in-cement stem revisions involving an Exeter or a Lubinus stem reported to the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register (SHAR) between January 1999 and December 2015. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed. Results. Survivorship is reported up to six years and was better in the Exeter group (91% standard deviation (. sd). 2.8% versus 85% . sd. 5.0%) (p = 0.02). There was, however, no significant difference in the survival of the stem and risk of re-revision for any reason (p = 0.58) and for aseptic loosening (p = 0.97), between revisions in which the Exeter stem (94% . sd. 2.2%; 98% . sd. 1.6%) was used compared with those in which the Lubinus stem (95% . sd. 3.2%; 98% . sd.  2.2%) was used. The database did not allow identification of whether a further revision was indicated for loosening of the acetabular or femoral component or both. Conclusion. The cement-in-cement technique for revision of the femoral component gave promising results using both designs of stem, six years post-operatively. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B(4 Supple B):27–32

Aims

The aim of this study is to report the implant survival and factors associated with revision of total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) using data from the Dutch national registry.

Aims

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a devastating complication following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Two-stage revision has traditionally been considered the gold standard of treatment for established infection, but increasing evidence is emerging in support of one-stage exchange for selected patients. The objective of this study was to determine the outcomes of single-stage revision TKA for PJI, with mid-term follow-up.

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. We have previously reported the mid-term outcomes of revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) for flexion instability. At a mean of four years, there were no re-revisions for instability. The aim of this study was to report the implant survivorship and clinical and radiological outcomes of the same cohort of of patients at a mean follow-up of ten years. Methods. The original publication included 60 revision TKAs in 60 patients which were undertaken between 2000 and 2010. The mean age of the patients at the time of revision TKA was 65 years, and 33 (55%) were female. Since that time, 21 patients died, leaving 39 patients (65%) available for analysis. The cumulative incidence of any re-revision with death as a competing risk was calculated. Knee Society Scores (KSSs) were also recorded, and updated radiographs were reviewed. Results. The cumulative incidence of any re-revision was 13% at a mean of ten years. At the most recent-follow-up, eight TKAs had been re-revised: three for recurrent flexion instability (two fully revised to varus-valgus constrained implants (VVCs), and one posterior-stabilized (PS) implant converted to VVC, one for global instability (PS to VVC), two for aseptic loosening of the femoral component, and two for periprosthetic joint infection). The ten-year cumulative incidence of any re-revision for instability was 7%. The median KSS improved significantly from 45 (interquartile range (IQR) 40 to 50) preoperatively to 70 (IQR 45 to 80) at a mean follow-up of ten years (p = 0.031). Radiologically, two patients, who had not undergone revision, had evidence of loosening (one tibial and one patellar). The remaining components were well fixed. Conclusion. We found fair functional outcomes and implant survivorship at a mean of ten years after revision TKA for flexion instability with a PS implant. Recurrent instability and aseptic loosening were the most common indications for re-revision. Components with increased constraint, such as a VVC or hinged, should be used in these patients in order to reduce the risk of recurrent instability. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(10):1126–1131

Aims. Revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) and revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) are complex procedures with higher rates of re-revision, complications, and mortality compared to primary TKA and THA. We report the effects of the establishment of a revision arthroplasty network (the East Midlands Specialist Orthopaedic Network; EMSON) on outcomes of rTKA and rTHA. Methods. The revision arthroplasty network was established in January 2015 and covered five hospitals in the Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire areas of the East Midlands of England. This comprises a collaborative weekly multidisciplinary meeting where upcoming rTKA and rTHA procedures are discussed, and a plan agreed. Using the Hospital Episode Statistics database, revision procedures carried out between April 2011 and March 2018 (allowing two-year follow-up) from the five network hospitals were compared to all other hospitals in England. Age, sex, and mean Hospital Frailty Risk scores were used as covariates. The primary outcome was re-revision surgery within one year of the index revision. Secondary outcomes were re-revision surgery within two years, any complication within one and two years, and median length of hospital stay. Results. A total of 57,621 rTHA and 33,828 rTKA procedures were performed across England, of which 1,485 (2.6%) and 1,028 (3.0%), respectively, were conducted within the network. Re-revision rates within one year for rTHA were 7.3% and 6.0%, and for rTKA were 11.6% and 7.4% pre- and postintervention, respectively, within the network. This compares to a pre-to-post change from 7.4% to 6.8% for rTHA and from 11.7% to 9.7% for rTKA for the rest of England. In comparative interrupted time-series analysis for rTKA there was a significant immediate improvement in one-year re-revision rates for the revision network compared to the rest of England (p = 0.024), but no significant change for rTHA (p = 0.504). For the secondary outcomes studied, there was a significant improvement in trend for one- and two-year complication rates for rTHA for the revision network compared to the rest of England. Conclusion. Re-revision rates for rTKA and complication rates for rTHA improved significantly at one and two years with the introduction of a revision arthroplasty network, when compared to the rest of England. Most of the outcomes studied improved to a greater extent in the network hospitals compared to the rest of England when comparing the pre- and postintervention periods. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(6):641–648

Aims. The aim of this study is to report the long-term outcomes of instrumented femoral revisions with impaction allograft bone grafting (IBG) using the X-change femoral revision system at 30 years after introduction of the technique. Methods. We updated the outcomes of our previous study, based on 208 consecutive revisions using IBG and the X-change femoral revision system in combination with a cemented polished stem, performed in our tertiary care institute between 1991 and 2007. Kaplan-Meier survival analyses were used to determine the survival rate of the revisions with endpoint revision for any reason and aseptic loosening. Secondary outcomes were radiological loosening and patient-reported outcome measures. Results. Mean age at revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) was 64.9 years (30 to 86). The most prevalent diagnosis for the femoral revision was aseptic loosening. At review in May 2021, 81 patients (85 hips) were still alive and 118 patients (120 hips; 58%) had died. Three patients (3 hips; 1%) were lost to follow-up at 11, 15, and 16 years after surgery, respectively. Data of all deceased and lost patients were included until final follow-up. The mean follow-up was 13.4 years (0 to 28). During the follow-up, 22 re-revisions were performed. The most common reason for re-revision was infection (n = 12; 54%). The survival with endpoint re-revision for any reason was 86% (95% confidence interval (CI) 79 to 91) at 20 years and 74% (95% CI 43 to 89) at 25 years after surgery. The survival for endpoint re-revision for aseptic loosening was 97% (95% CI 91 to 99) after both 20 and 25 years. Conclusion. We conclude that femoral IBG is a valuable technique that can reconstitute femoral bone loss in the long term. After 25 years of follow-up, few re-revisions for aseptic loosening were required. Also, the overall revision rate is very acceptable at a long follow-up. This technique is especially attractive for younger patients facing femoral revisions with extensive bone loss. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(9):1039–1046

Aims. This study aimed to determine outcomes of isolated tibial insert exchange (ITIE) during revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Methods. From 1985 to 2016, 270 ITIEs were performed at one institution for instability (55%, n = 148), polyethylene wear (39%, n = 105), insert fracture/dissociation (5%, n = 14), or stiffness (1%, n = 3). Patients with component loosening, implant malposition, infection, and extensor mechanism problems were excluded. Results. Survivorship free of any re-revision was 68% at ten years. For the indication of insert wear, survivorship free of any re-revision at ten years was 74%. Re-revisions were more frequent for index diagnoses other than wear (hazard ratio (HR) 1.9; p = 0.013), with ten-year survivorships of 69% for instability and 37% for insert fracture/dissociation. Following ITIE for wear, the most common reason for re-revision was aseptic loosening (33%, n = 7). For other indications, the most common reason for re-revision was recurrence of the original diagnosis. Mean Knee Society Scores improved from 54 (0 to 94) preoperatively to 77 (38 to 94) at ten years. Conclusion. After ITIE, the risk and reasons for re-revision correlated with preoperative indications. The best results were for polyethylene wear. For other diagnoses, the re-revision rate was higher and the failure mode was most commonly recurrence of the original indication for the revision TKA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6):1103–1110

Aims. Revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) is a technically challenging and costly procedure. It is well-documented that primary TKA (pTKA) have better survivorship than rTKA; however, we were unable to identify any studies explicitly investigating previous rTKA as a risk factor for failure following rTKA. The purpose of this study is to compare the outcomes following rTKA between patients undergoing index rTKA and those who had been previously revised. Methods. This retrospective, observational study reviewed patients who underwent unilateral, aseptic rTKA at an academic orthopaedic speciality hospital between June 2011 and April 2020 with > one-year of follow-up. Patients were dichotomized based on whether this was their first revision procedure or not. Patient demographics, surgical factors, postoperative outcomes, and re-revision rates were compared between the groups. Results. A total of 663 cases were identified (486 index rTKAs and 177 multiply revised TKAs). There were no differences in demographics, rTKA type, or indication for revision. Multiply revised patients had significantly longer rTKA operative times (p < 0.001), and were more likely to be discharged to an acute rehabilitation centre (6.2% vs 4.5%) or skilled nursing facility (29.9% vs 17.5%; p = 0.003). Patients who had been multiply revised were also significantly more likely to have subsequent reoperation (18.1% vs 9.5%; p = 0.004) and re-revision (27.1% vs 18.1%; p = 0.013). The number of previous revisions did not correlate with the number of subsequent reoperations (r = 0.038; p = 0.670) or re-revisions (r = −0.102; p = 0.251). Conclusion. Multiply revised TKA had worse outcomes, with higher rates of facility discharge, longer operative times, and greater reoperation and re-revision rates compared to index rTKA. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(5):393–398

Aims. There is little information in the literature about the use of dual-mobility (DM) bearings in preventing re-dislocation in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). The aim of this study was to compare the use of DM bearings, standard bearings, and constrained liners in revision THA for recurrent dislocation, and to identify risk factors for re-dislocation. Methods. We reviewed 86 consecutive revision THAs performed for dislocation between August 2012 and July 2019. A total of 38 revisions (44.2%) involved a DM bearing, while 39 (45.3%) and nine (10.5%) involved a standard bearing and a constrained liner, respectively. Rates of re-dislocation, re-revision for dislocation, and overall re-revision were compared. Radiographs were assessed for the positioning of the acetabular component, the restoration of the centre of rotation, leg length, and offset. Risk factors for re-dislocation were determined by Cox regression analysis. The modified Harris Hip Scores (mHHSs) were recorded. The mean age of the patients at the time of revision was 70 years (43 to 88); 54 were female (62.8%). The mean follow-up was 5.0 years (2.0 to 8.75). Results. DM bearings were used significantly more frequently in elderly patients (p = 0.003) and in hips with abductor deficiency (p < 0.001). The re-dislocation rate was 13.2% for DM bearings compared with 17.9% for standard bearings, and 22.2% for constrained liners (p = 0.432). Re-revision-free survival for DM bearings was 84% (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 0.91) compared with 74% (95% CI 0.67 to 0.81) for standard articulations, and 67% (95% CI 0.51 to 0.82) for constrained liners (p = 0.361). Younger age (hazard ratio (HR) 0.92 (95% CI 0.85 to 0.99); p = 0.031), lower comorbidity (HR 0.44 (95% CI 0.20 to 0.95); p = 0.037), smaller heads (HR 0.80 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.99); p = 0.046), and retention of the acetabular component (HR 8.26 (95% CI 1.37 to 49.96); p = 0.022) were significantly associated with re-dislocation. All DM bearings which re-dislocated were in patients with abductor muscle deficiency (HR 48.34 (95% CI 0.03 to 7,737.98); p = 0.303). The radiological analysis did not reveal a significant relationship between restoration of the geometry of the hip and re-dislocation. The mean mHHSs significantly improved from 43 points (0 to 88) to 67 points (20 to 91; p < 0.001) at the final follow-up, with no differences between the types of bearing. Conclusion. We found that the use of DM bearings reduced the rates of re-dislocation and re-revision in revision THA for recurrent dislocation, but did not guarantee stability. Abductor deficiency is an important predictor of persistent instability. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(5 Supple B):89–97

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. Methods. Patients undergoing one- or two-stage revision of a primary THA for PJI between January 2008 and January 2021 were identified. Age, sex, BMI, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), McPherson systemic host grade, and causative organism were collated for all patients. PJI was classified as ‘confirmed’, ‘likely’, or ‘unlikely’ according to the 2021 European Bone and Joint Infection Society criteria. Primary outcomes were complications, reoperation, re-revision, and successful treatment of PJI. A total of 37 patients aged 80 years or older and 120 patients aged under 80 years were identified. The octogenarian group had a significantly lower BMI and significantly higher CCI and McPherson systemic host grades compared to the younger cohort. Results. The majority of patients were planned to undergo two-stage revision, although a significantly higher proportion of the octogenarians did not proceed with the second stage (38.7% (n = 12) vs 14.8% (n = 16); p = 0.003). Although there was some evidence of a lower complication rate in the younger cohort, this did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.065). No significant difference in reoperation (21.6% (n = 8) vs 25.0% (n = 30); p = 0.675) or re-revision rate (8.1% (n = 3) vs 16.7% (n = 20); p = 0.288) was identified between the groups. There was no difference in treatment success between groups (octogenarian 89.2% (n = 33) vs control 82.5% (n = 99); p = 0.444). Conclusion. When compared to a younger cohort, octogenarians did not show a significant difference in complication, re-revision, or treatment success rates. However, given they are less likely to be eligible to proceed with second stage revision, consideration should be given to either single-stage revision or use of an articulated spacer to maximize functional outcomes. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(8):802–807

Aims. One-stage revision hip arthroplasty for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) has several advantages; however, resection of the proximal femur might be necessary to achieve higher success rates. We investigated the risk factors for resection and re-revisions, and assessed complications and subsequent re-revisions. Methods. In this single-centre, case-control study, 57 patients who underwent one-stage revision arthroplasty for PJI of the hip and required resection of the proximal femur between 2009 and 2018 were identified. The control group consisted of 57 patients undergoing one-stage revision without bony resection. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify any correlation with resection and the risk factors for re-revisions. Rates of all-causes re-revision, reinfection, and instability were compared between groups. Results. Patients who required resection of the proximal femur were found to have a higher all-cause re-revision rate (29.8% vs 10.5%; p = 0.018), largely due to reinfection (15.8% vs 0%; p = 0.003), and dislocation (8.8% vs 10.5%; p = 0.762), and showed higher rate of in-hospital wound haematoma requiring aspiration or evacuation (p = 0.013), and wound revision (p = 0.008). The use of of dual mobility components/constrained liner in the resection group was higher than that of controls (94.7% vs 36.8%; p < 0.001). The presence and removal of additional metal hardware (odds ratio (OR) = 7.2), a sinus tract (OR 4), ten years’ time interval between primary implantation and index infection (OR 3.3), and previous hip revision (OR 1.4) increased the risk of proximal femoral resection. A sinus tract (OR 9.2) and postoperative dislocation (OR 281.4) were associated with increased risk of subsequent re-revisions. Conclusion. Proximal femoral resection during one-stage revision hip arthroplasty for PJI may be required to reduce the risk of of recurrent or further infection. Patients with additional metalware needing removal or transcortical sinus tracts and chronic osteomyelitis are particularly at higher risk of needing proximal femoral excision. However, radical resection is associated with higher surgical complications and increased re-revision rates. The use of constrained acetabular liners and dual mobility components maintained an acceptable dislocation rate. These results, including identified risk factors, may aid in preoperative planning, patient consultation and consent, and intraoperative decision-making. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(11):1678–1685

Aims. To compare rates of serious adverse events in patients undergoing revision knee arthroplasty with consideration of the indication for revision (urgent versus elective indications), and compare these with primary arthroplasty and re-revision arthroplasty. Methods. Patients undergoing primary knee arthroplasty were identified in the national Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) between 1 April 1997 to 31 March 2017. Subsequent revision and re-revision arthroplasty procedures in the same patients and same knee were identified. The primary outcome was 90-day mortality and a logistic regression model was used to investigate factors associated with 90-day mortality and secondary adverse outcomes, including infection (undergoing surgery), pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, and stroke. Urgent indications for revision arthroplasty were defined as infection or fracture, and all other indications (e.g. loosening, instability, wear) were included in the elective indications cohort. Results. A total of 939,021 primary knee arthroplasty procedures were included (939,021 patients), of which 40,854 underwent subsequent revision arthroplasty, and 9,100 underwent re-revision arthroplasty. Revision surgery for elective indications was associated with a 90-day rate of mortality of 0.44% (135/30,826; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.37 to 0.52) which was comparable to primary knee arthroplasty (0.46%; 4,292/939,021; 95% CI 0.44 to 0.47). Revision arthroplasty for infection was associated with a much higher mortality of 2.04% (184/9037; 95% CI 1.75 to 2.35; odds ratio (OR) 3.54; 95% CI 2.81 to 4.46), as was revision for periprosthetic fracture at 5.25% (52/991; 95% CI 3.94 to 6.82; OR 6.23; 95% CI 4.39 to 8.85). Higher rates of pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, and stroke were also observed in the infection and fracture cohort. Conclusion. Patients undergoing revision arthroplasty for urgent indications (infection or fracture) are at higher risk of mortality and serious adverse events in comparison to primary knee arthroplasty and revision arthroplasty for elective indications. These findings will be important for patient consent and shared decision-making and should inform service design for this patient cohort. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(10):1578–1585

Aims. There are limited long-term studies reporting on outcomes of the Zimmer Modular Revision (ZMR) stem, and concerns remain regarding failure. Our primary aim was to determine long-term survival free from all-cause revision and stem-related failure for this modular revision stem in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). Secondary aims included evaluating radiological and functional outcomes. Methods. We retrospectively identified all patients in our institutional database who underwent revision THA using the ZMR system from January 2000 to December 2007. We included 106 patients (108 hips) with a mean follow-up of 14.5 years (2.3 to 22.3). Mean patient age was 69.2 years (37.0 to 89.4), and 51.9% were female (n = 55). Indications for index revision included aseptic loosening (73.1%), infection (16.7%), fracture (9.3%), and stem fracture (0.9%). Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to determine the all-cause and stem-related failure revision-free survival. At most recent follow-up, Oxford Hip Scores (OHS) were collected, and radiological stem stability was determined using the Engh classification. Results. A total of 17 hips (15.7%) underwent re-revision of any component. Indications for re-revision were stem failure (35.3%; n = 6), infection (29.4%; n = 5), instability (29.4%; n = 5), and acetabular aseptic loosening (5.9%; n = 1). The five- and 15-year all-cause survival was 89.7% (95% confidence interval (CI) 86.7 to 92.7) and 83.3% (95% CI 79.6 to 87.0), respectively. There were six re-revisions (5.6%) for stem failure; five for stem fracture and one for aseptic loosening. The five- and 15-year survival free from stem-related failure was 97.2% (95% CI 95.6 to 98.8) and 94.0% (95% CI 91.6 to 96.4), respectively. At final follow-up, the mean OHS was 36.9 (8.0 to 48.0) and 95.7% (n = 66) of surviving modular revision stems were well-fixed in available radiographs. Conclusion. Femoral revision with the ZMR offers satisfactory long-term all-cause revision-free survival, good survival free of stem-related failure, and favourable clinical outcomes. Stem fracture was the most common reason for stem-related failure and occurred both early and late. This highlights the importance of both early and long-term surveillance for stem-related failure. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(5 Supple B):112–117

Aims. Debate remains whether the patella should be resurfaced during total knee replacement (TKR). For non-resurfaced TKRs, we estimated what the revision rate would have been if the patella had been resurfaced, and examined the risk of re-revision following secondary patellar resurfacing. Methods. A retrospective observational study of the National Joint Registry (NJR) was performed. All primary TKRs for osteoarthritis alone performed between 1 April 2003 and 31 December 2016 were eligible (n = 842,072). Patellar resurfacing during TKR was performed in 36% (n = 305,844). The primary outcome was all-cause revision surgery. Secondary outcomes were the number of excess all-cause revisions associated with using TKRs without (versus with) patellar resurfacing, and the risk of re-revision after secondary patellar resurfacing. Results. The cumulative risk of all-cause revision at ten years was higher (p < 0.001) in primary TKRs without patellar resurfacing (3.54% (95% confidence interval (CI) 3.47 to 3.62)) compared to those with resurfacing (3.00% (95% CI 2.91 to 3.11)). Using flexible parametric survival modelling, we estimated one ‘excess’ revision per 189 cases performed where the patella was not resurfaced by ten years (equivalent to 2,842 excess revisions in our cohort). The risk of all-cause re-revision following secondary patellar resurfacing was 4.6 times higher than the risk of revision after primary TKR with patellar resurfacing (at five years from secondary patellar resurfacing, 8.8% vs 1.9%). Conclusion. Performing TKR without patellar resurfacing was associated with an increased risk of revision. Secondary patellar resurfacing led to a high risk of re-revision. This represents a potential substantial healthcare burden that should be considered when forming treatment guidelines and commissioning services. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(5):864–871

Aims. The purpose of this study was to evaluate unexpected positive cultures in total hip arthroplasty (THA) revisions for presumed aseptic loosening, to assess the prevalence of low-grade infection using two definition criteria, and to analyze its impact on implant survival after revision. Methods. A total of 274 THA revisions performed for presumed aseptic loosening from 2012 to 2016 were reviewed. In addition to obtaining intraoperative tissue cultures from all patients, synovial and sonication fluid samples of the removed implant were obtained in 215 cases (79%) and 101 cases (37%), respectively. Histopathological analysis was performed in 250 cases (91%). Patients were classified as having low-grade infections according to institutional criteria and Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) International Consensus Meeting (ICM) 2013 criteria. Low-grade infections according to institutional criteria were treated with targeted antibiotics for six weeks postoperatively. Implant failure was defined as the need for re-revision resulting from periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) and aseptic reasons. The mean follow-up was 68 months (26 to 95). Results. Unexpected positive intraoperative samples were found in 77 revisions (28%). Low-grade infection was diagnosed in 36 cases (13%) using institutional criteria and in nine cases (3%) using MSIS ICM 2013 criteria. In all, 41 patients (15%) had single specimen growth of a low-virulent pathogen and were deemed contaminated. Coagulase-negative Staphylococcus and anaerobes were the most commonly isolated bacteria. Implant failure for PJI was higher in revisions with presumed contaminants (5/41, 12%) compared to those with low-grade infections (2/36, 6%) and those with negative samples (5/197, 3%) (p = 0.021). The rate of all-cause re-revision was similar in patients diagnosed with low-grade infections (5/36, 14%) and those with presumed contaminants (6/41, 15%) and negative samples (21/197, 11%) (p = 0.699). Conclusion. Our findings suggest that the presumption of culture contamination in aseptic revision hip arthroplasty may increase the detection of PJI. In this cohort, the presence of low-grade infection did not increase the risk of re-revision. Further studies are needed to assess the relevance of single specimen growth and the benefits of specific postoperative antibiotic regimens. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6):1070–1077

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

The October 2023 Knee Roundup. 360. looks at: Cementless total knee arthroplasty is associated with more revisions within a year; Kinematically and mechanically aligned total knee arthroplasties: long-term follow-up; Aspirin thromboprophylaxis following primary total knee arthroplasty is associated with a lower rate of early periprosthetic joint infection compared with other agents; The impact of a revision arthroplasty network on patient outcomes; Re-revision knee arthroplasty in a tertiary centre: how does infection impact on outcomes?; Does the knee joint have its own microbiome?; Revision knee surgery provision in Scotland; Aspirin is a safe and effective thromboembolic prophylaxis after total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis; Patellar resurfacing and kneeling ability after total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review

Aims. A limited number of investigations with conflicting results have described perivascular lymphocytic infiltration (PVLI) in the setting of total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The purpose of this study was to determine if PVLI found in TKAs at the time of aseptic revision surgery was associated with worse clinical outcomes and survivorship. Methods. A retrospective review was conducted on 617 patients who underwent aseptic TKA revision who had histological analysis for PVLI at the time of surgery. Clinical and radiological data were obtained pre- and postoperatively, six weeks postoperatively, and then every year thereafter. Results. Within this cohort, 118 patients (19.1%) were found to have PVLI on histological analysis. Re-revision was performed on 83 patients (13.4%) with no significant differences in all-cause or aseptic revisions between groups. A higher incidence of PVLI was noted in female patients (p = 0.037). There was no significant difference in improvement in the range of motion (p = 0.536), or improvement of KSC (p = 0.66), KSP (p = 0.61), or KSF (p = 0.3) clinical outcome scores between PVLI and no PVLI sub-groups. There was a higher incidence of a preoperative diagnosis of pain in the PVLI group compared with patients without PVLI (p = 0.002) present. Conclusion. PVLI found on large-scale histological analysis in TKAs at aseptic revision surgery was not associated with worse clinical outcomes or rates of re-revision. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6 Supple A):145–149

Aims. Proximal femoral endoprosthetic replacements (PFEPRs) are the most common reconstruction option for osseous defects following primary and metastatic tumour resection. This study aimed to compare the rate of implant failure between PFEPRs with monopolar and bipolar hemiarthroplasties and acetabular arthroplasties, and determine the optimum articulation for revision PFEPRs. Methods. This is a retrospective review of 233 patients who underwent PFEPR. The mean age was 54.7 years (SD 18.2), and 99 (42.5%) were male. There were 90 patients with primary bone tumours (38.6%), 122 with metastatic bone disease (52.4%), and 21 with haematological malignancy (9.0%). A total of 128 patients had monopolar (54.9%), 74 had bipolar hemiarthroplasty heads (31.8%), and 31 underwent acetabular arthroplasty (13.3%). Results. At a mean 74.4 months follow-up, the overall revision rate was 15.0%. Primary malignancy (p < 0.001) and age < 50 years (p < 0.001) were risk factors for revision. The risks of death and implant failure were similar in patients with primary disease (p = 0.872), but the risk of death was significantly greater for patients who had metastatic bone disease (p < 0.001). Acetabular-related implant failures comprised 74.3% of revisions; however, no difference between hemiarthroplasty or arthroplasty groups (p = 0.209), or between monopolar or bipolar hemiarthroplasties (p = 0.307), was observed. There was greater radiological wear in patients with longer follow-up and primary bone malignancy. Re-revision rates following a revision PFEPR was 34.3%, with dual-mobility bearings having the lowest rate of instability and re-revision (15.4%). Conclusion. Hemiarthroplasty and arthroplasty PFEPRs carry the same risk of revision in the medium term, and is primarily due to acetabular complications. There is no difference in revision rates or erosion between monopolar and bipolar hemiarthroplasties. The main causes of failure were acetabular wear in the hemiarthroplasty group and instability in the arthroplasty group. These risks should be balanced and patient prognosis considered when contemplating the bearing choice. Dual-mobility, constrained bearings, or large diameter heads (> 32 mm) are recommended in all revision PFEPRs. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(10):1633–1640

Aims. To map literature on prognostic factors related to outcomes of revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA), to identify extensively studied factors and to guide future research into what domains need further exploration. Methods. We performed a systematic literature search in MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science. The search string included multiple synonyms of the following keywords: "revision TKA", "outcome" and "prognostic factor". We searched for studies assessing the association between at least one prognostic factor and at least one outcome measure after rTKA surgery. Data on sample size, study design, prognostic factors, outcomes, and the direction of the association was extracted and included in an evidence map. Results. After screening of 5,660 articles, we included 166 studies reporting prognostic factors for outcomes after rTKA, with a median sample size of 319 patients (30 to 303,867). Overall, 50% of the studies reported prospectively collected data, and 61% of the studies were performed in a single centre. In some studies, multiple associations were reported; 180 different prognostic factors were reported in these studies. The three most frequently studied prognostic factors were reason for revision (213 times), sex (125 times), and BMI (117 times). Studies focusing on functional scores and patient-reported outcome measures as prognostic factor for the outcome after surgery were limited (n = 42). The studies reported 154 different outcomes. The most commonly reported outcomes after rTKA were: re-revision (155 times), readmission (88 times), and reinfection (85 times). Only five studies included costs as outcome. Conclusion. Outcomes and prognostic factors that are routinely registered as part of clinical practice (e.g. BMI, sex, complications) or in (inter)national registries are studied frequently. Studies on prognostic factors, such as functional and sociodemographic status, and outcomes as healthcare costs, cognitive and mental function, and psychosocial impact are scarce, while they have been shown to be important for patients with osteoarthritis. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(5):338–356

Aims. To determine the outcomes following revision surgery of metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties (MoMHA) performed for adverse reactions to metal debris (ARMD), and to identify factors predictive of re-revision. Patients and Methods. We performed a retrospective observational study using National Joint Registry (NJR) data on 2535 MoMHAs undergoing revision surgery for ARMD between 2008 and 2014. The outcomes studied following revision were intra-operative complications, mortality and re-revision surgery. Predictors of re-revision were identified using competing-risk regression modelling. Results. Intra-operative complications occurred in 40 revisions (1.6%). The cumulative five-year patient survival rate was 95.9% (95% confidence intervals (CI) 92.3 to 97.8). Re-revision surgery was performed in 192 hips (7.6%). The cumulative five-year implant survival rate was 89.5% (95% CI 87.3 to 91.3). Predictors of re-revision were high body mass index at revision (subhazard ratio (SHR) 1.06 per kg/m. 2 . increase, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.09), modular component only revisions (head and liner with or without taper adapter; SHR 2.01, 95% CI 1.19 to 3.38), ceramic-on-ceramic revision bearings (SHR 1.86, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.80), and acetabular bone grafting (SHR 2.10, 95% CI 1.43 to 3.07). These four factors remained predictive of re-revision when the missing data were imputed. Conclusion. The short-term risk of re-revision following MoMHA revision surgery performed for ARMD was comparable with that reported in the NJR following all-cause non-MoMHA revision surgery. However, the factors predictive of re-revision included those which could be modified by the surgeon, suggesting that rates of failure following ARMD revision may be reduced further. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:1020–7

Aims. Bone stock restoration of acetabular bone defects using impaction bone grafting (IBG) in total hip arthroplasty may facilitate future re-revision in the event of failure of the reconstruction. We hypothesized that the acetabular bone defect during re-revision surgery after IBG was smaller than during the previous revision surgery. The clinical and radiological results of re-revisions with repeated use of IBG were also analyzed. Methods. In a series of 382 acetabular revisions using IBG and a cemented component, 45 hips (45 patients) that had failed due to aseptic loosening were re-revised between 1992 and 2016. Acetabular bone defects graded according to Paprosky during the first and the re-revision surgery were compared. Clinical and radiological findings were analyzed over time. Survival analysis was performed using a competing risk analysis. Results. Intraoperative bone defect during the initial revision included 19 Paprosky type IIIA and 29 Paprosky type IIIB hips; at re-revision, seven hips were Paprosky type II, 27 type IIIA and 11 were type IIIB (p = 0.020). The mean preoperative Harris Hip Score was 45.4 (SD 6.4), becoming 80.7 (SD 12.7) at the final follow-up. In all, 12 hips showed radiological migration of the acetabular component, and three required further revision surgery. The nine-year cumulative failure incidence (nine patients at risk) of the acetabular component for further revision surgery was 9.6% (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.9 to 21.0) for any cause, and 7.5% (95% CI 1.9 to 18.5) for aseptic loosening. Hips with a greater hip height had a higher risk for radiological migration (odds ratio 1.09, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.17; p = 0.008). Conclusion. Bone stock restoration can be obtained using IBG in revision hip surgery. This technique is also useful in re-revision surgery; however, a better surgical technique including a closer distance to hip rotation centre could decrease the risk of radiological migration of the acetabular component. A longer follow-up is required to assess potential fixation deterioration. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(3):492–499

Objectives. Few studies have assessed outcomes following non-metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty (non-MoMHA) revision surgery performed for adverse reactions to metal debris (ARMD). We assessed outcomes following non-MoMHA revision surgery performed for ARMD, and identified predictors of re-revision. Methods. We performed a retrospective observational study using data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. All non-MoMHAs undergoing revision surgery for ARMD between 2008 and 2014 were included (185 hips in 185 patients). Outcome measures following ARMD revision were intra-operative complications, mortality and re-revision surgery. Predictors of re-revision were identified using Cox regression. Results. Intra-operative complications occurred in 6.0% (n = 11) of the 185 cases. The cumulative four-year patient survival rate was 98.2% (95% CI 92.9 to 99.5). Re-revision surgery was performed in 13.5% (n = 25) of hips at a mean time of 1.2 years (0.1 to 3.1 years) following ARMD revision. Infection (32%; n = 8), dislocation/subluxation (24%; n = 6), and aseptic loosening (24%; n = 6) were the most common re-revision indications. The cumulative four-year implant survival rate was 83.8% (95% CI 76.7 to 88.9). Multivariable analysis identified three predictors of re-revision: multiple revision indications (hazard ratio (HR) = 2.78; 95% CI 1.03 to 7.49; p = 0.043); selective component revisions (HR = 5.76; 95% CI 1.28 to 25.9; p = 0.022); and ceramic-on-polyethylene revision bearings (HR = 3.08; 95% CI 1.01 to 9.36; p = 0.047). Conclusions. Non-MoMHAs revised for ARMD have a high short-term risk of re-revision, with important predictors of future re-revision including selective component revision, multiple revision indications, and ceramic-on-polyethylene revision bearings. Our findings may help counsel patients about the risks of ARMD revision, and guide reconstructive decisions. Future studies attempting to validate the predictors identified should also assess the effects of implant design (metallurgy and modularity), given that this was an important study limitation potentially influencing the reported prognostic factors. Cite this article: G. S. Matharu, A. Judge, D. W. Murray, H. G. Pandit. Outcomes following revision surgery performed for adverse reactions to metal debris in non-metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty patients: Analysis of 185 revisions from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Bone Joint Res 2017;6:405–413. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.67.BJR-2017-0017.R2

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. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of depressive and anxiety disorders prior to total hip (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and to assess their impact on the rates of any infection, revision, or reoperation. Methods. Between January 2000 and March 2019, 21,469 primary and revision arthroplasties (10,011 THAs; 11,458 TKAs), which were undertaken in 15,504 patients at a single academic medical centre, were identified from a 27-county linked electronic medical record (EMR) system. Depressive and anxiety disorders were identified by diagnoses in the EMR or by using a natural language processing program with subsequent validation from review of the medical records. Patients with mental health diagnoses other than anxiety or depression were excluded. Results. Depressive and/or anxiety disorders were common before THA and TKA, with a prevalence of 30% in those who underwent primary THA, 33% in those who underwent revision THA, 32% in those who underwent primary TKA, and 35% in those who underwent revision TKA. The presence of depressive or anxiety disorders was associated with a significantly increased risk of any infection (primary THA, hazard ratio (HR) 1.5; revision THA, HR 1.9; primary TKA, HR 1.6; revision TKA, HR 1.8), revision (THA, HR 1.7; TKA, HR 1.6), re-revision (THA, HR 2.0; TKA, HR 1.6), and reoperation (primary THA, HR 1.6; revision THA, HR 2.2; primary TKA, HR 1.4; revision TKA, HR 1.9; p < 0.03 for all). Patients with preoperative depressive and/or anxiety disorders were significantly less likely to report “much better” joint function after primary THA (78% vs 87%) and primary TKA (86% vs 90%) compared with those without these disorders at two years postoperatively (p < 0.001 for all). Conclusion. The presence of depressive or anxiety disorders prior to primary or revision THA and TKA is common, and associated with a significantly higher risk of infection, revision, reoperation, and dissatisfaction. This topic deserves further study, and surgeons may consider mental health optimization to be of similar importance to preoperative variables such as diabetic control, prior to arthroplasty. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(5):526–533

Aims. Instability is a common indication for revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). However, even after the initial revision, some patients continue to have recurrent dislocation. The aim of this study was to assess the risk for recurrent dislocation after revision THA for instability. Methods. Between 2009 and 2019, 163 patients underwent revision THA for instability at Stanford University Medical Center. Of these, 33 (20.2%) required re-revision due to recurrent dislocation. Cox proportional hazard models, with death and re-revision surgery for periprosthetic infection as competing events, were used to analyze the risk factors, including the size and alignment of the components. Paired t-tests or Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used to assess the outcome using the Veterans RAND 12 (VR-12) physical and VR-12 mental scores, the Harris Hip Score (HHS) pain and function, and the Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome score for Joint Replacement (HOOS, JR). Results. The median follow-up was 3.1 years (interquartile range 2.0 to 5.1). The one-year cumulative incidence of recurrent dislocation after revision was 8.7%, which increased to 18.8% at five years and 31.9% at ten years postoperatively. In multivariable analysis, a high American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade (hazard ratio (HR) 2.72 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.13 to 6.60)), BMI between 25 and 30 kg/m. 2. (HR 4.31 (95% CI 1.52 to 12.27)), the use of specialized liners (HR 5.39 (95% CI 1.97 to 14.79) to 10.55 (95% CI 2.27 to 49.15)), lumbopelvic stiffness (HR 6.03 (95% CI 1.80 to 20.23)), and postoperative abductor weakness (HR 7.48 (95% CI 2.34 to 23.91)) were significant risk factors for recurrent dislocation. Increasing the size of the acetabular component by > 1 mm significantly decreased the risk of dislocation (HR 0.89 (95% CI 0.82 to 0.96)). The VR-12 physical and HHS (pain and function) scores improved significantly at mid term. Conclusion. Patients requiring revision THA for instability are at risk of recurrent dislocation. Higher ASA grades, being overweight, a previous lumbopelvic fusion, the use of specialized liners, and postoperative abductor weakness are significant risk factors. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(5 Supple B):105–111

Aims. Obtaining solid implant fixation is crucial in revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) to avoid aseptic loosening, a major reason for re-revision. This study aims to validate a novel grading system that quantifies implant fixation across three anatomical zones (epiphysis, metaphysis, diaphysis). Methods. Based on pre-, intra-, and postoperative assessments, the novel grading system allocates a quantitative score (0, 0.5, or 1 point) for the quality of fixation achieved in each anatomical zone. The criteria used by the algorithm to assign the score include the bone quality, the size of the bone defect, and the type of fixation used. A consecutive cohort of 245 patients undergoing rTKA from 2012 to 2018 were evaluated using the current novel scoring system and followed prospectively. In addition, 100 first-time revision cases were assessed radiologically from the original cohort and graded by three observers to evaluate the intra- and inter-rater reliability of the novel radiological grading system. Results. At a mean follow-up of 90 months (64 to 130), only two out of 245 cases failed due to aseptic loosening. Intraoperative grading yielded mean scores of 1.87 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.82 to 1.92) for the femur and 1.96 (95% CI 1.92 to 2.0) for the tibia. Only 3.7% of femoral and 1.7% of tibial reconstructions fell below the 1.5-point threshold, which included the two cases of aseptic loosening. Interobserver reliability for postoperative radiological grading was 0.97 for the femur and 0.85 for the tibia. Conclusion. A minimum score of 1.5 points for each skeletal segment appears to be a reasonable cut-off to define sufficient fixation in rTKA. There were no revisions for aseptic loosening at mid-term follow-up when this fixation threshold was achieved or exceeded. When assessing first-time revisions, this novel grading system has shown excellent intra- and interobserver reliability. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(5):468–474

Aims. The aims of this study were to determine the success of a reconstruction algorithm used in major acetabular bone loss, and to further define the indications for custom-made implants in major acetabular bone loss. Methods. We reviewed a consecutive series of Paprosky type III acetabular defects treated according to a reconstruction algorithm. IIIA defects were planned to use a superior augment and hemispherical acetabular component. IIIB defects were planned to receive either a hemispherical acetabular component plus augments, a cup-cage reconstruction, or a custom-made implant. We used national digital health records and registry reports to identify any reoperation or re-revision procedure and Oxford Hip Score (OHS) for patient-reported outcomes. Implant survival was determined via Kaplan-Meier analysis. Results. A total of 105 procedures were carried out in 100 patients (five bilateral) with a mean age of 73 years (42 to 94). In the IIIA defects treated, 72.0% (36 of 50) required a porous metal augment; the remaining 14 patients were treated with a hemispherical acetabular component alone. In the IIIB defects, 63.6% (35 of 55) underwent reconstruction as planned with 20 patients who actually required a hemispherical acetabular component alone. At mean follow-up of 7.6 years, survival was 94.3% (95% confidence interval 97.4 to 88.1) for all-cause revision and the overall dislocation rate was 3.8% (4 of 105). There was no difference observed in survival between type IIIA and type IIIB defects and whether a hemispherical implant alone was used for the reconstruction or not. The mean gain in OHS was 16 points. Custom-made implants were only used in six cases, in patients with either a mega-defect in which the anteroposterior diameter > 80 mm, complex pelvic discontinuity, and massive bone loss in a small pelvis. Conclusion. Our findings suggest that a reconstruction algorithm can provide a successful approach to reconstruction in major acetabular bone loss. The use of custom implants has been defined in this series and accounts for < 5% of cases. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(5 Supple B):47–53

Aims. Both the femoral and tibial component are usually cemented at revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA), while stems can be added with either cemented or press-fit (hybrid) fixation. The aim of this study was to compare the long-term stability of rTKA with cemented and press-fitted stems, using radiostereometric analysis (RSA). Methods. This is a follow-up of a randomized controlled trial, initially involving 32 patients, of whom 19 (nine cemented, ten hybrid) were available for follow-up ten years postoperatively, when further RSA measurements were made. Micromotion of the femoral and tibial components was assessed using model-based RSA software (RSAcore). The clinical outcome was evaluated using the Knee Society Score (KSS), the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), and visual analogue scale (pain and satisfaction). Results. The median total femoral translation and rotation at ten years were 0.39 mm (interquartile range (IQR) 0.20 to 0.54) and 0.59° (IQR 0.46° to 0.73°) for the cemented group and 0.70 mm (IQR 0.15 to 0.77) and 0.78° (IQR 0.47° to 1.43°) for the hybrid group. For the tibial components this was 0.38 mm (IQR 0.33 to 0.85) and 0.98° (IQR 0.38° to 1.34°) for the cemented group and 0.42 mm (IQR 0.30 to 0.52) and 0.72° (IQR 0.62° to 0.82°) for the hybrid group. None of these values were significantly different between the two groups and there were no significant differences between the clinical scores in the two groups at this time. There was only one re-revision, in the hybrid group, for infection and not for aseptic loosening. Conclusion. These results show good long-term fixation with no difference in micromotion and clinical outcome between fully cemented and hybrid fixation in rTKA, which builds on earlier short- to mid-term results. The patients all had type I or II osseous defects, which may in part explain the good results. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(7):875–883

Aims. Simultaneous bilateral total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has been used due to its financial advantages, overall resource usage, and convenience for the patient. The training model where a trainee performs the first TKA, followed by the trainer surgeon performing the second TKA, is a unique model to our institution. This study aims to analyze the functional and clinical outcomes of bilateral simultaneous TKA when performed by a trainee or a supervising surgeon, and also to assess these outcomes based on which side was done by the trainee or by the surgeon. Methods. This was a retrospective cohort study of all simultaneous bilateral TKAs performed by a single surgeon in an academic institution between May 2003 and November 2017. Exclusion criteria were the use of partial knee arthroplasty procedures, staged bilateral procedures, and procedures not performed by the senior author on one side and the trainee on another. Primary clinical outcomes of interest included revision and re-revision. Primary functional outcomes included the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and patient satisfaction scores. Results. In total, 315 patients (630 knees) were included for analysis. Of these, functional scores were available for 189 patients (378 knees). There was a 1.9% (n = 12) all-cause revision rate for all knees. Overall, 12 knees in ten patients were revised, and both right and left knees were revised in two patients. The OKS and patient satisfaction scores were comparable for trainees and supervising surgeons. A majority of patients (88%, n = 166) were either highly likely (67%, n = 127) or likely (21%, n = 39) to recommend bilateral TKAs to a friend. Conclusion. Simultaneous bilateral TKA can be used as an effective teaching model for trainees without any significant impact on patient clinical or functional outcomes. Excellent functional and clinical outcomes in both knees, regardless of whether the performing surgeon is a trainee or supervising surgeon, can be achieved with simultaneous bilateral TKA. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(1):29–34

We retrospectively reviewed 44 consecutive patients (50 hips) who underwent acetabular re-revision after a failed previous revision that had been performed using structural or morcellised allograft bone, with a cage or ring for uncontained defects. Of the 50 previous revisions, 41 cages and nine rings were used with allografts for 14 minor-column and 36 major-column defects. We routinely assessed the size of the acetabular bone defect at the time of revision and re-revision surgery. This allowed us to assess whether host bone stock was restored. We also assessed the outcome of re-revision surgery in these circumstances by means of radiological characteristics, rates of failure and modes of failure. We subsequently investigated the factors that may affect the potential for the restoration of bone stock and the durability of the re-revision reconstruction using multivariate analysis. At the time of re-revision, there were ten host acetabula with no significant defects, 14 with contained defects, nine with minor-column, seven with major-column defects and ten with pelvic discontinuity. When bone defects at re-revision were compared with those at the previous revision, there was restoration of bone stock in 31 hips, deterioration of bone stock in nine and remained unchanged in ten. This was a significant improvement (p <  0.001). Morselised allografting at the index revision was not associated with the restoration of bone stock. . In 17 hips (34%), re-revision was possible using a simple acetabular component without allograft, augments, rings or cages. There were 47 patients with a mean follow-up of 70 months (6 to 146) available for survival analysis. Within this group, the successful cases had a minimum follow-up of two years after re-revision. There were 22 clinical or radiological failures (46.7%), 18 of which were due to aseptic loosening. The five and ten year Kaplan–Meier survival rate was 75% (95% CI, 60 to 86) and 56% (95% CI, 40 to 70) respectively with aseptic loosening as the endpoint. The rate of aseptic loosening was higher for hips with pelvic discontinuity (p = 0.049) and less when the allograft had been in place for longer periods (p = 0.040). . The use of a cage or ring over structural allograft bone for massive uncontained defects in acetabular revision can restore host bone stock and facilitate subsequent re-revision surgery to a certain extent. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:319–24

Aims. It has previously been shown that higher-volume hospitals have better outcomes following revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA). We were unable to identify any studies which investigated the effect of surgeon volume on the outcome of rTKA. We sought to investigate whether patients of high-volume (HV) rTKA surgeons have better outcomes following this procedure compared with those of low-volume (LV) surgeons. Methods. This retrospective study involved patients who underwent aseptic unilateral rTKA between January 2016 and March 2019, using the database of a large urban academic medical centre. Surgeons who performed ≥ 19 aseptic rTKAs per year during the study period were considered HV and those who performed < 19 per year were considered LV. Demographic characteristics, surgical factors, and postoperative outcomes were compared between the two groups. Results. A total of 308 rTKAs were identified, 132 performed by HV surgeons and 176 by 22 LV surgeons. The LV group had a significantly greater proportion of non-smokers (59.8% vs 49.2%; p = 0.029). For all types of revision, HV surgeons had significantly shorter mean operating times by 17.75 minutes (p = 0.007). For the 169 full revisions (85 HV, 84 LV), HV surgeons had significantly shorter operating times (131.12 (SD 33.78) vs 171.65 (SD 49.88) minutes; p < 0.001), significantly lower re-revision rates (7.1% vs 19.0%; p = 0.023) and significantly fewer re-revisions (0.07 (SD 0.26) vs 0.29 (SD 0.74); p = 0.017). Conclusion. Patients of HV rTKA surgeons have better outcomes following full rTKA. These findings support the development of revision teams within arthroplasty centres of excellence to offer patients the best possible outcomes following rTKA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6 Supple A):131–136

Aims. This study aimed to determine the diagnostic performance of radiographic criteria to detect aseptic acetabular loosening after revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). Secondary aims were to determine the predictive values of different thresholds of migration and to determine the predictive values of radiolucency criteria. Patients and Methods. Acetabular component migration to re-revision was measured retrospectively using Ein-Bild-Rontgen-Analyse (EBRA-Cup) and manual measurements (Sutherland method) in two groups: Group A, 52 components (48 patients) found not loose at re-revision and Group B, 42 components (36 patients) found loose at re-revision between 1980 and 2015. The presence and extent of radiolucent lines was also assessed. Results. Using EBRA, both proximal translation and sagittal rotation were excellent diagnostic tests for detecting aseptic loosening. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves was 0.94 and 0.93, respectively. The thresholds of 2.5 mm proximal translation or 2° sagittal rotation (EBRA) in combination with radiolucency criteria had a sensitivity of 93% and specificity of 88% to detect aseptic loosening. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value (NPV) of radiolucency criteria were 41%, 100%, 100% and 68% respectively. Manual measurements of both proximal translation and sagittal rotation were very good diagnostic tests. The area under the ROC curve was 0.86 and 0.92 respectively. However, manual measurements had a decreased specificity compared with EBRA. Radiolucency criteria had a poor sensitivity and NPV of 41% and 68% respectively. Conclusion. This study shows that EBRA and manual migration measurements can be used as accurate diagnostic tools to detect aseptic loosening of cementless acetabular components used at revision THA. Radiolucency criteria should not be used in isolation to exclude loosening of cementless acetabular components used at revision THA given their poor sensitivity and NPV. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:458–64

Aims. The purpose of this study was to determine the sensitivity, specificity and predictive values of previously reported thresholds of proximal translation and sagittal rotation of cementless acetabular components used for revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) at various times during early follow-up. Patients and Methods. Migration of cementless acetabular components was measured retrospectively in 84 patients (94 components) using Ein-Bild-Rontgen-Analyse (EBRA-Cup) in two groups of patients. In Group A, components were recorded as not being loose intra-operatively at re-revision THA (52 components/48 patients) and Group B components were recorded to be loose at re-revision (42 components/36 patients). Results. The mean proximal translation and sagittal rotation were significantly higher in Group B than in Group A from three months onwards (p < 0.02). Proximal translation > 1.0 mm within 24 months had a positive predictive value (PPV) of 90% and a specificity of 94%, but a sensitivity of 64%. Proximal translation > 1.0 mm within the first 24 months correctly identified 76 of 94 (81%) of components to be either loose or not loose. However, ten components in Group B (24%) did not migrate proximally above 1.0 mm within the first 60 months. Conclusion. The high PPV of EBRA-Cup measurements of proximal translation (90%) shows that this can be used in early follow-up to identify patients at risk of aseptic loosening. The absence of proximal translation within the first 60 months indicates a component is not likely to be loose at re-revision THA although it does not exclude late aseptic loosening as a cause of failure. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:465–74

Aims. Single-stage revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) is gaining popularity in treating chronic periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs). We have introduced this approach to our clinical practice and sought to evaluate rates of reinfection and re-revision, along with predictors of failure of both single- and two-stage rTKA for chronic PJI. Methods. A retrospective comparative cohort study of all rTKAs for chronic PJI between 1 April 2003 and 31 December 2018 was undertaken using prospective databases. Patients with acute infections were excluded; rTKAs were classified as single-stage, stage 1, or stage 2 of two-stage revision. The primary outcome measure was failure to eradicate or recurrent infection. Variables evaluated for failure by regression analysis included age, BMI, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, infecting organisms, and the presence of a sinus. Patient survivorship was also compared between the groups. Results. A total of 292 consecutive first-time rTKAs for chronic PJI were included: 82 single-stage (28.1%); and 210 two-stage (71.9%) revisions. The mean age was 71 years (27 to 90), with 165 females (57.4%), and a mean BMI of 30.9 kg/m. 2. (20 to 53). Significantly more patients with a known infecting organism were in the single-stage group (93.9% vs 80.47%; p = 0.004). The infecting organism was identified preoperatively in 246 cases (84.2%). At a mean follow-up of 6.3 years (2.0 to 17.6), the failure rate was 6.1% in the single-stage, and 12% in the two-stage groups. All failures occurred within four years of treatment. The presence of a sinus was an independent risk factor for failure (odds ratio (OR) 4.97; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.593 to 15.505; p = 0.006), as well as age > 80 years (OR 5.962; 95% CI 1.156 to 30.73; p = 0.033). The ten-year patient survivorship rate was 72% in the single-stage group compared with 70.5% in the two-stage group. This difference was not significant (p = 0.517). Conclusion. Single-stage rTKA is an effective strategy with a high success rate comparable to two-stage approach in appropriately selected patients. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(8):1373–1379

Aims. Tibial cones are often utilized in revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with metaphyseal defects. Because there are few studies evaluating mid-term outcomes with a sufficient cohort, the purpose of this study was to evaluate tibial cone survival and complications in revision TKAs with tibial cones at minimum follow-up of five years. Methods. A retrospective review was completed from September 2006 to March 2015, evaluating 67 revision TKAs (64 patients) that received one specific porous tibial cone during revision TKA. The final cohort was composed of 62 knees (59 patients) with five years of clinical follow-up or reoperation. The mean clinical follow-up of the TKAs with minimum five-year clinical follow-up was 7.6 years (5.0 to 13.3). Survivorship analysis was performed with the endpoints of tibial cone revision for aseptic loosening, tibial cone revision for any reason, and reoperation. We also evaluated periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), risk factors for failure, and performed a radiological review. Results. The rate of cone revision for aseptic loosening was 6.5%, with an eight-year survival of 95%. Significant bone loss (Anderson Orthopaedic Research Institute grade 3) was associated with cone revision for aseptic loosening (p = 0.002). The rate of cone revision for any reason was 17.7%, with an eight-year survival of 84%. Sixteen percent of knees developed PJI following revision. A pre-revision diagnosis of reimplantation as part of a two-stage exchange protocol for infection was associated with both PJI (p < 0.001) and tibial cone revision (p = 0.001). Conclusion. Mid-term results of tibial cones showed a survivorship free of cone revision for aseptic loosening of 95%. Patients with significant bone loss were more likely to have re-revision for tibial cone failure. Infection was common, and patients receiving cones at reimplantation were more likely to develop PJI and undergo cone revision. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6 Supple A):158–164

We report the clinical and radiographic outcomes of 208 consecutive femoral revision arthroplasties performed in 202 patients (119 women, 83 men) between March 1991 and December 2007 using the X-change Femoral Revision System, fresh-frozen morcellised allograft and a cemented polished Exeter stem. All patients were followed prospectively. The mean age of the patients at revision was 65 years (30 to 86). At final review in December 2013 a total of 130 patients with 135 reconstructions (64.9%) were alive and had a non re-revised femoral component after a mean follow-up of 10.6 years (4.7 to 20.9). One patient was lost to follow-up at six years, and their data were included up to this point. Re-operation for any reason was performed in 33 hips (15.9%), in 13 of which the femoral component was re-revised (6.3%). The mean pre-operative Harris hip score was 52 (19 to 95) (n = 73) and improved to 80 (22 to 100) (n = 161) by the last follow-up. Kaplan–Meier survival with femoral re-revision for any reason as the endpoint was 94.9% (95% confidence intervals (CI) 90.2 to 97.4) at ten years; with femoral re-revision for aseptic loosening as the endpoint it was 99.4% (95% CI 95.7 to 99.9); with femoral re-operation for any reason as the endpoint it was 84.5% (95% CI 78.3 to 89.1); and with subsidence ≥ 5 mm it was 87.3% (95% CI 80.5 to 91.8). Femoral revision with the use of impaction allograft bone grafting and a cemented polished stem results in a satisfying survival rate at a mean of ten years’ follow-up. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015; 97-B:771–9

Aims. Although good clinical outcomes have been reported for monolithic tapered, fluted, titanium stems (TFTS), early results showed high rates of subsidence. Advances in stem design may mitigate these concerns. This study reports on the use of a current monolithic TFTS for a variety of indications. Methods. A multi-institutional retrospective study of all consecutive total hip arthroplasty (THA) and revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) patients who received the monolithic TFTS was conducted. Surgery was performed by eight fellowship-trained arthroplasty surgeons at four institutions. A total of 157 hips in 153 patients at a mean follow-up of 11.6 months (SD7.8) were included. Mean patient age at the time of surgery was 67.4 years (SD 13.3) and mean body mass index (BMI) was 28.9 kg/m. 2. (SD 6.5). Outcomes included intraoperative complications, one-year all-cause re-revisions, and subsidence at postoperative time intervals (two weeks, six weeks, six months, nine months, and one year). Results. There were eight intraoperative complications (4.9%), six of which were intraoperative fractures; none occurred during stem insertion. Six hips (3.7%) underwent re-revision within one year; only one procedure involved removal of the prosthesis due to infection. Mean total subsidence at latest follow-up was 1.64 mm (SD 2.47). Overall, 17 of 144 stems (11.8%) on which measurements could be performed had >5 mm of subsidence, and 3/144 (2.1%) had >10 mm of subsidence within one year. A univariate regression analysis found that additional subsidence after three months was minimal. A multivariate regression analysis found that subsidence was not significantly associated with periprosthetic fracture as an indication for surgery, the presence of an extended trochanteric osteotomy (ETO), Paprosky classification of femoral bone loss, stem length, or type of procedure performed (i.e. full revision vs conversion/primary). Conclusion. Advances in implant design, improved trials, a range of stem lengths and diameters, and high offset options mitigate concerns of early subsidence and dislocation with monolithic TFTS, making them a valuable option for femoral revision. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(2):191–197

We undertook a retrospective cohort study to determine clinical outcomes following the revision of metal-on-metal (MoM) hip replacements for adverse reaction to metal debris (ARMD), and to identify predictors of time to revision and outcomes following revision. Between 1998 and 2012 a total of 64 MoM hips (mean age at revision of 57.8 years; 46 (72%) female; 46 (72%) hip resurfacings and 18 (28%) total hip replacements) were revised for ARMD at one specialist centre. At a mean follow-up of 4.5 years (1.0 to 14.6) from revision for ARMD there were 13 hips (20.3%) with post-operative complications and eight (12.5%) requiring re-revision. . The Kaplan–Meier five-year survival rate for ARMD revision was 87.9% (95% confidence interval 78.9 to 98.0; 19 hips at risk). Excluding re-revisions, the median absolute Oxford hip score (OHS) following ARMD revision using the percentage method (0% best outcome and 100% worst outcome) was 18.8% (interquartile range (IQR) 7.8% to 48.3%), which is equivalent to 39/48 (IQR 24.8/48 to 44.3/48) when using the modified OHS. Histopathological response did not affect time to revision for ARMD (p = 0.334) or the subsequent risk of re-revision (p = 0.879). Similarly, the presence or absence of a contralateral MoM hip bearing did not affect time to revision for ARMD (p = 0.066) or the subsequent risk of re-revision (p = 0.178). . Patients revised to MoM bearings had higher rates of re-revision (five of 16 MoM hips re-revised; p = 0.046), but those not requiring re-revision had good functional results (median absolute OHS 14.6% or 41.0/48). Short-term morbidity following revision for ARMD was comparable with previous reports. Caution should be exercised when choosing bearing surfaces for ARMD revisions. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:1600–9

We present the results of 62 consecutive acetabular revisions using impaction bone grafting and a cemented polyethylene acetabular component in 58 patients (13 men and 45 women) after a mean follow-up of 27 years (25 to 30). All patients were prospectively followed. The mean age at revision was 59.2 years (23 to 82). . We performed Kaplan–Meier (KM) analysis and also a Competing Risk (CR) analysis because with long-term follow-up, the presence of a competing event (i.e. death) prevents the occurrence of the endpoint of re-revision. . A total of 48 patients (52 hips) had died or had been re-revised at final review in March 2011. None of the deaths were related to the surgery. The mean Harris hip score of the ten surviving hips in ten patients was 76 points (45 to 99). The KM survivorship at 25 years for the endpoint ‘re-revision for any reason’ was 58.0% (95% confidence interval (CI) 38 to 73) and for ‘re-revision for aseptic loosening’ 72.1% (95% CI 51 to 85). With the CR analysis we calculated the KM analysis overestimates the failure rate with respectively 74% and 93% for these endpoints. The current study shows that acetabular impaction bone grafting revisions provide good clinical results at over 25 years. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1338–44

The August 2023 Hip & Pelvis Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Using machine learning to predict venous thromboembolism and major bleeding events following total joint arthroplasty; Antibiotic length in revision total hip arthroplasty; Preoperative colonization and worse outcomes; Short stem cemented total hip arthroplasty; What are the outcomes of one- versus two-stage revisions in the UK?; To cement or not to cement? The best approach in hemiarthroplasty; Similar re-revisions in cemented and cementless femoral revisions for periprosthetic femoral fractures in total hip arthroplasty; Are hip precautions still needed?