Aims

The Advance Medial-Pivot total knee arthroplasty (TKA) was designed to reflect contemporary data regarding the kinematics of the knee. We wished to examine the long-term results obtained with this prosthesis by extending a previous evaluation.

This review examines the future of total hip arthroplasty, aiming to avoid past mistakes

We are entering a new era with governmental bodies taking an increasingly guiding role, gaining control of registries, demanding direct access with release of open public information for quality comparisons between hospitals. This review is written by physicians and scientists who have worked with the Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register (SKAR) periodically since it began. It reviews the history of the register and describes the methods used and lessons learned.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2014;3:217–22.

This is the second of a series of reviews of registries. This review looks specifically at worldwide registry data that have been collected on knee arthroplasty, what we have learned from their reports, and what the limitations are as to what we currently know.

The popularity of cementless total hip replacement (THR) has surpassed cemented THR in England and Wales. This retrospective cohort study records survival time to revision following primary cementless THR with the most common combination (accounting for almost a third of all cementless THRs), and explores risk factors independently associated with failure, using data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Patients with osteoarthritis who had a DePuy Corail/Pinnacle THR implanted between the establishment of the registry in 2003 and 31 December 2010 were included within analyses. There were 35 386 procedures. Cox proportional hazard models were used to analyse the extent to which the risk of revision was related to patient, surgeon and implant covariates. The overall rate of revision at five years was 2.4% (99% confidence interval 2.02 to 2.79). In the final adjusted model, we found that the risk of revision was significantly higher in patients receiving metal-on-metal (MoM: hazard ratio (HR) 1.93, p < 0.001) and ceramic-on-ceramic bearings (CoC: HR 1.55, p = 0.003) compared with the best performing bearing (metal-on-polyethylene). The risk of revision was also greater for smaller femoral stems (sizes 8 to 10: HR 1.82, p < 0.001) compared with mid-range sizes. In a secondary analysis of only patients where body mass index (BMI) data were available (n = 17 166), BMI ≥ 30 kg/m² significantly increased the risk of revision (HR 1.55, p = 0.002). The influence of the bearing on the risk of revision remained significant (MoM: HR 2.19, p < 0.001; CoC: HR 2.09, p = 0.001). The risk of revision was independent of age, gender, head size and offset, shell, liner and stem type, and surgeon characteristics.

We found significant differences in failure between bearing surfaces and femoral stem size after adjustment for a range of covariates in a large cohort of single-brand cementless THRs. In this study of procedures performed since 2003, hard bearings had significantly higher rates of revision, but we found no evidence that head size had an effect. Patient characteristics, such as BMI and American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, also influence the survival of cementless components.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:747–57.

Femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) causes pain and chondrolabral damage via mechanical overload during movement of the hip. It is caused by many different types of pathoanatomy, including the cam ‘bump’, decreased head–neck offset, acetabular retroversion, global acetabular overcoverage, prominent anterior–inferior iliac spine, slipped capital femoral epiphysis, and the sequelae of childhood Perthes’ disease.

Both evolutionary and developmental factors may cause FAI. Prevalence studies show that anatomic variations that cause FAI are common in the asymptomatic population. Young athletes may be predisposed to FAI because of the stress on the physis during development. Other factors, including the soft tissues, may also influence symptoms and chondrolabral damage.

FAI and the resultant chondrolabral pathology are often treated arthroscopically. Although the results are favourable, morphologies can be complex, patient expectations are high and the surgery is challenging. The long-term outcomes of hip arthroscopy are still forthcoming and it is unknown if treatment of FAI will prevent arthrosis.

Modern metal-on-metal hip resurfacing has been widely performed in the United Kingdom for over a decade. However, the literature reports conflicting views of the benefits: excellent medium- to long-term results with some brands in specific subgroups, but high failure rates and local soft-tissue reactions in others. The National Joint Registry for England and Wales (NJR) has collected data on all hip resurfacings performed since 2003. This retrospective cohort study recorded survival time to revision from a resurfacing procedure, exploring risk factors independently associated with failure. All patients with a primary diagnosis of osteoarthritis who underwent resurfacing between 2003 and 2010 were included in the analyses. Cox’s proportional hazard models were used to analyse the extent to which the risk of revision was related to patient, surgeon and implant covariates.

A total of 27 971 hip resurfacings were performed during the study period, of which 1003 (3.59%) underwent revision surgery. In the final adjusted model, we found that women were at greater risk of revision than men (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.30, p = 0.007), but the risk of revision was independent of age. Of the implant-specific predictors, five brands had a significantly greater risk of revision than the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) (ASR: HR = 2.82, p < 0.001, Conserve: HR = 2.03, p < 0.001, Cormet: HR = 1.43, p = 0.001, Durom: HR = 1.67, p < 0.001, Recap: HR = 1.58, p = 0.007). Smaller femoral head components were also significantly more likely to require revision (≤ 44 mm: HR = 2.14, p < 0.001, 45 to 47 mm: HR = 1.48, p = 0.001) than medium or large heads, as were operations performed by low-volume surgeons (HR = 1.36, p <  0.001). Once these influences had been removed, in 4873 male patients < 60 years old undergoing resurfacing with a BHR, the five-year estimated risk of revision was 1.59%.

In summary, after adjustment for a range of covariates we found that there were significant differences in the rate of failure between brands and component sizes. Younger male patients had good five-year implant survival when the BHR was used.

We have reviewed the rate of revision of fully cemented, hybrid and uncemented primary total hip replacements (THRs) registered in the New Zealand Joint Registry between 1999 and December 2006 to determine whether there was any statistically significant difference in the early survival and reason for revision in these different types of fixation. The percentage rate of revision was calculated per 100 component years and compared with the reason for revision, the type of fixation and the age of the patients.

Of the 42 665 primary THRs registered, 920 (2.16%) underwent revision requiring change of at least one component. Fully-cemented THRs had a lower rate of revision when considering all causes for failure (p < 0.001), but below the age of 65 years uncemented THRs had a lower rate (p < 0.01). The rate of revision of the acetabular component for aseptic loosening was less in the uncemented and hybrid groups compared with that in the fully cemented group (p < 0.001), and the rate of revision of cemented and uncemented femoral components was similar, except in patients over 75 years of age in whom revision of cemented femoral components was significantly less frequent (p < 0.02). Revision for infection was more common in patients aged below 65 years and in cemented and hybrid THRs compared with cementless THRs (p < 0.001). Dislocation was the most common cause of revision for all types of fixation and was more frequent in both uncemented acetabular groups (p < 0.001). The experience of the surgeon did not affect the findings.

Although cemented THR had the lowest rate of revision for all causes in the short term (90 days), uncemented THR had the lowest rate of aseptic loosening in patients under 65 years of age and had rates comparable with international rates of aseptic loosening in those over 65 years.