Aims

The National Joint Registry for England, Wales and Northern Ireland (NJR) has extended its scope to report on hospital, surgeon and implant performance. Data linkage of the NJR to the London Implant Retrieval Centre (LIRC) has previously evaluated data quality for hip primary procedures, but did not assess revision records.

The June 2015 Knee Roundup360 looks at: Cruciate substituting versus retaining knee replacement; What’s behind the psychology of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction?; Is there a difference in total knee arthroplasty risk of revision in highly crosslinked versus conventional polyethylene?; Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: is age the missing variable?; Satisfaction rates following total knee arthroplasty; Is knee alignment dynamic?; Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: cemented or cementless?; Can revision knee services pay?

Excision of the proximal femur for tumour with prosthetic reconstruction using a bipolar femoral head places a considerable load on the unreplaced acetabulum.

We retrospectively reviewed the changes which occur around the affected hip joint by evaluating the post-operative radiographs of 65 consecutive patients who underwent proximal prosthetic arthroplasty of the femur, and in whom an acetabular component had not been used. There were 37 men and 28 women with a mean age of 57.3 years (17 to 93). Radiological assessment included the extent of degenerative change in the acetabulum, heterotopic ossification, and protrusio acetabuli.

The mean follow-up was 9.1 years (2 to 11.8). Degenerative changes in the acetabulum were seen in three patients (4.6%), Brooker grade 1 or 2 heterotopic ossification in 17 (26%) and protrusion of the prosthetic head in nine (13.8%).

A total of eight patients (12.3%) needed a revision. Five were revised to the same type of prosthesis and three (4.6%) were converted to a total hip arthroplasty.

We conclude that radiological evidence of degenerative change, heterotopic ossification and protrusion occur in a few patients who undergo prosthetic arthroplasty of the proximal femur for tumour. The limited extent of these changes and the lack of associated symptoms do not justify the routine arthroplasty of the acetabulum in these patients.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1704–9

The December 2015 Knee Roundup360 looks at: Albumin and complications in knee arthroplasty; Tantalum: a knee fixation for all seasons?; Dynamic knee alignment; Tibial component design in UKA; Managing the tidal wave of revision knee arthroplasty; Scoring pain in TKR; Does anyone have a ‘normal’ tibial slope?; XLPE in TKR? A five-year clinical study; Spacers and infected revision arthroplasties; Dialysis and arthroplasty

As adverse events related to metal on metal hip arthroplasty have been better understood, there has been increased interest in toxicity related to the high circulating levels of cobalt ions. However, distinguishing true toxicity from benign elevations in cobalt levels can be challenging. The purpose of this review is to examine the use of cobalt alloys in total hip arthroplasty, to review the methods of measuring circulating cobalt levels, to define a level of cobalt which is considered pathological and to review the pathophysiology, risk factors and treatment of cobalt toxicity. To the best of our knowledge, there are 18 published cases where cobalt metal ion toxicity has been attributed to the use of cobalt-chromium alloys in hip arthroplasty. Of these cases, the great majority reported systemic toxic reactions at serum cobalt levels more than 100 μg/L. This review highlights some of the clinical features of cobalt toxicity, with the goal that early awareness may decrease the risk factors for the development of cobalt toxicity and/or reduce its severity.

Take home message: Severe adverse events can arise from the release of cobalt from metal-on-metal arthroplasties, and as such, orthopaedic surgeons should not only be aware of the presenting problems, but also have the knowledge to treat appropriately.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:14–20.

Background

Approximately half of all hip fractures are displaced intracapsular fractures. The standard treatment for these fractures is either hemiarthroplasty or total hip arthroplasty. The recent National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance on hip fracture management recommends the use of ‘proven’ cemented stem arthroplasty with an Orthopaedic Device Evaluation Panel (ODEP) rating of at least 3B (97% survival at three years). The Thompsons prosthesis is currently lacking an ODEP rating despite over 50 years of clinical use, likely due to the paucity of implant survival data. Nationally, adherence to these guidelines is varied as there is debate as to which prosthesis optimises patient outcomes.

We report the five-year outcome of a randomised controlled trial which used radiostereometric analysis (RSA) to assess the influence of surface oxidised zirconium (OxZr, Oxinium) on polyethylene wear in vivo.

A total of 120 patients, 85 women and 35 men with a mean age of 70 years (59 to 80) who were scheduled for primary cemented total hip arthroplasty were randomly allocated to four study groups. Patients were blinded to their group assignment and received either a conventional polyethylene (CPE) or a highly cross-linked (HXL) acetabular component of identical design. On the femoral side patients received a 28 mm head made of either cobalt-chromium (CoCr) or OxZr.

The proximal head penetration (wear) was measured with repeated RSA examinations over five years. Clinical outcome was measured using the Harris hip score.

There was no difference in polyethylene wear between the two head materials when used with either of the two types of acetabular component (p = 0.3 to 0.6). When comparing the two types of polyethylene there was a significant difference in favour of HXLPE, regardless of the head material used (p < 0.001).

In conclusion, we found no advantage of OxZr over CoCr in terms of polyethylene wear after five years of follow-up. Our findings do not support laboratory results which have shown a reduced rate of wear with OxZr. They do however add to the evidence on the better resistance to wear of HXLPE over CPE.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1463–9.

This prospective study reports the 15-year survival and ten-year functional outcome of a consecutive series of 1000 minimally invasive Phase 3 Oxford medial UKAs (818 patients, 393 men, 48%, 425 women, 52%, mean age 66 years; 32 to 88). These were implanted by two surgeons involved with the design of the prosthesis to treat anteromedial osteoarthritis and spontaneous osteonecrosis of the knee, which are recommended indications. Patients were prospectively identified and followed up independently for a mean of 10.3 years (5.3 to 16.6).

At ten years, the mean Oxford Knee Score was 40 (standard deviation (sd) 9; 2 to 48): 79% of knees (349) had an excellent or good outcome. There were 52 implant-related re-operations at a mean of 5.5 years (0.2 to 14.7). The most common reasons for re-operation were arthritis in the lateral compartment (2.5%, 25 knees), bearing dislocation (0.7%, seven knees) and unexplained pain (0.7%, seven knees). When all implant-related re-operations were considered as failures, the ten-year rate of survival was 94% (95% confidence interval (CI) 92 to 96) and the 15-year survival rate 91% (CI 83 to 98). When failure of the implant was the endpoint the 15-year survival was 99% (CI 96 to 100).

This is the only large series of minimally invasive UKAs with 15-year survival data. The results support the continued use of minimally invasive UKA for the recommended indications.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1493–99.

The use of robots in orthopaedic surgery is an emerging field that is gaining momentum. It has the potential for significant improvements in surgical planning, accuracy of component implantation and patient safety. Advocates of robot-assisted systems describe better patient outcomes through improved pre-operative planning and enhanced execution of surgery. However, costs, limited availability, a lack of evidence regarding the efficiency and safety of such systems and an absence of long-term high-impact studies have restricted the widespread implementation of these systems. We have reviewed the literature on the efficacy, safety and current understanding of the use of robotics in orthopaedics.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015; 97-B:292–9.

The August 2015 Hip & Pelvis Roundup360 looks at: The well-fixed acetabular revision; Predicting complications in revision arthroplasty; Is infection associated with fixation?; Front or back? An enduring question in hip surgery; Muscle-sparing approaches?; Gabapentin as a post-operative analgesic adjunct; An Indian take on AVN of the hip; Weight loss and arthroplasty

We report a 12- to 15-year implant survival assessment of a prospective single-surgeon series of Birmingham Hip Resurfacings (BHRs). The earliest 1000 consecutive BHRs including 288 women (335 hips) and 598 men (665 hips) of all ages and diagnoses with no exclusions were prospectively followed-up with postal questionnaires, of whom the first 402 BHRs (350 patients) also had clinical and radiological review.

Mean follow-up was 13.7 years (12.3 to 15.3). In total, 59 patients (68 hips) died 0.7 to 12.6 years following surgery from unrelated causes. There were 38 revisions, 0.1 to 13.9 years (median 8.7) following operation, including 17 femoral failures (1.7%) and seven each of infections, soft-tissue reactions and other causes. With revision for any reason as the end-point Kaplan–Meier survival analysis showed 97.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) 96.9 to 97.9) and 95.8% (95% CI 95.1 to 96.5) survival at ten and 15 years, respectively. Radiological assessment showed 11 (3.5%) femoral and 13 (4.1%) acetabular radiolucencies which were not deemed failures and one radiological femoral failure (0.3%).

Our study shows that the performance of the BHR continues to be good at 12- to 15-year follow-up. Men have better implant survival (98.0%; 95% CI 97.4 to 98.6) at 15 years than women (91.5%; 95% CI 89.8 to 93.2), and women < 60 years (90.5%; 95% CI 88.3 to 92.7) fare worse than others. Hip dysplasia and osteonecrosis are risk factors for failure. Patients under 50 years with osteoarthritis fare best (99.4%; 95% CI 98.8 to 100 survival at 15 years), with no failures in men in this group.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:1298–1306.

Using the United States Nationwide Inpatient Sample, we identified national trends in revision spinal fusion along with a comprehensive comparison of comorbidities, inpatient complications and surgical factors of revision spinal fusion compared to primary spinal fusion.

In 2009, there were 410 158 primary spinal fusion discharges and 22 128 revision spinal fusion discharges. Between 2002 and 2009, primary fusion increased at a higher rate compared with revision fusion (56.4% vs 51.0%; p < 0.001). In 2009, the mean length of stay and hospital charges were higher for revision fusion discharges than for primary fusion discharges (4.2 days vs 3.8 days, p < 0.001; USD $91 909 vs. $87 161, p < 0.001). In 2009, recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) was used more in revision fusion than in primary fusion (39.6% vs 27.6%, p < 0.001), whereas interbody devices were used less in revision fusion (41.8% vs 56.6%, p < 0.001).

In the multivariable logistic regression model for all spinal fusions, depression (odds ratio (OR) 1.53, p < 0.001), psychotic disorders (OR 1.49, p < 0.001), deficiency anaemias (OR 1.35, p < 0.001) and smoking (OR 1.10, p = 0.006) had a greater chance of occurrence in revision spinal fusion discharges than in primary fusion discharges, adjusting for other variables. In terms of complications, after adjusting for all significant comorbidities, this study found that dural tears (OR 1.41; p < 0.001) and surgical site infections (OR 3.40; p < 0.001) had a greater chance of occurrence in revision spinal fusion discharges than in primary fusion discharges (p < 0.001). A p-value < 0.01 was considered significant in all final analyses.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:807–16.

The December 2014 Oncology Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: metaphyseal and diaphyseal osteosarcoma subtly different beasts; sports and endoprosthetic reconstruction of the knee; is curettage without tissue diagnosis sensible in cartilaginous tumours?; autoclaved autograft in bone tumour reconstruction; vascularised graft a step too far in bone defects?; interdigitated neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in high-grade sarcoma; predicting life expectancy in patients with painful metastasis; and osteolytic lesions of the hands and feet.

The June 2015 Children’s orthopaedics Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: ACL reconstruction in paediatric knees; Hips, slips and cams; The adolescent clavicle; 3D fluoroscopy in DDH?; The psychiatric aspects of hip pain in adolescents; Adolescent bunions: dealer’s choice?; Medial epicondylar fractures revisited

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

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

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

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

This randomised trial evaluated the outcome of a single design of unicompartmental arthroplasty of the knee (UKA) with either a cemented all-polyethylene or a metal-backed modular tibial component. A total of 63 knees in 45 patients (17 male, 28 female) were included, 27 in the all-polyethylene group and 36 in the metal-backed group. The mean age was 57.9 years (39.6 to 76.9). At a mean follow-up of 6.4 years (5 to 9.9), 11 all-polyethylene components (41%) were revised (at a mean of 5.8 years; 1.4 to 8.0) post-operatively and two metal-backed components were revised (at one and five years). One revision in both groups was for unexplained pain, one in the metal-backed group was for progression of osteoarthritis. The others in the all-polyethylene group were for aseptic loosening. The survivorship at seven years calculated by the Kaplan–Meier method for the all-polyethylene group was 56.5% (95% CI 31.9 to 75.2, number at risk 7) and for the metal-backed group was 93.8% (95% CI 77.3 to 98.4, number at risk 16) This difference was statistically significant (p <  0.001). At the most recent follow-up, significantly better mean Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index Scores were found in the all-polyethylene group (13.4 vs 23.0, p = 0.03) but there was no difference in the mean Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome scores (68.8; 41.4 to 99.0 vs 62.6; 24.0 to 100.0), p = 0.36). There were no significant differences for range of movement (p = 0.36) or satisfaction (p = 0.23).

This randomised study demonstrates that all-polyethylene components in this design of fixed bearing UKA had unsatisfactory results with significantly higher rates of failure before ten years compared with the metal-back components.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:786–92.

The limitations and benefits of patient-reported outcome measures, in defining the merits of arthroplasty surgery, are discussed.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:578–81.