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. 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. 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. 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. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) has become the most common type of shoulder arthroplasty used in the UK, and a better understanding of the outcomes after revision of a failed RSA is needed. The aim of this study was to review the current evidence systematically to determine patient-reported outcome measures and the rates of re-revision and complications for patients undergoing revision of a RSA. Methods. MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched. Studies involving adult patients who underwent revision of a primary RSA for any indication were included. Those who underwent a RSA for failure of a total shoulder arthroplasty or hemiarthroplasty were excluded. Pre- and postoperative shoulder scores were evaluated in a random effects meta-analysis to determine the mean difference. The rates of re-revision and complications were also calculated. Results. The initial search elicited 3,166 results and, following removal of duplicates and screening, 13 studies with a total of 1,042 RSAs were identified. An increase in shoulder scores pre- to postoperatively was reported in all the studies. Following revision of a RSA to a further RSA, there was a significant increase in the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Score (mean difference 20.78 (95% CI 8.16 to 33.40); p = 0.001). A re-revision rate at final follow-up ranging from 9% to 32%, a one-year re-revision rate of 14%, and a five-year re-revision rate of 23% were reported. The complication rate in all the studies was between 18.5% and 36%, with a total incidence of 29%. Conclusion. This is the largest systematic review of the outcomes following revision of a RSA. We found an improvement in functional outcomes after revision surgery, but the rates of re-revision and complications are high and warrant consideration when planning a revision procedure. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(11):1293–1300

Aims. This study evaluates the association between consultant and hospital volume and the risk of re-revision and 90-day mortality following first-time revision of primary hip arthroplasty for aseptic loosening. Methods. We conducted a cohort study of first-time, single-stage revision hip arthroplasties (RHAs) performed for aseptic loosening and recorded in the National Joint Registry (NJR) data for England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the Isle of Man between 2003 and 2019. Patient identifiers were used to link records to national mortality data, and to NJR data to identify subsequent re-revision procedures. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard models with restricted cubic splines were used to define associations between volume and outcome. Results. Among 12,961 RHAs there were 513 re-revisions within two years, and 95 deaths within 90 days of surgery. The risk of re-revision was highest for a consultant’s first RHA (hazard ratio (HR) 1.56 (95% CI 1.15 to 2.12)) and remained significantly elevated for their first 24 cases (HR 1.26 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.58)). Annual consultant volumes of five/year were associated with an almost 30% greater risk of re-revision (HR 1.28 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.64)) and 80% greater risk of 90-day mortality (HR 1.81 (95% CI 1.02 to 3.21)) compared to volumes of 20/year. RHAs performed at hospitals which had cumulatively undertaken fewer than 167 RHAs were at up to 70% greater risk of re-revision (HR 1.70 (95% CI 1.12 to 2.59)), and those having undertaken fewer than 307 RHAs were at up to three times greater risk of 90-day mortality (HR 3.05 (95% CI 1.19 to 7.82)). Conclusion. This study found a significantly higher risk of re-revision and early postoperative mortality following first-time single-stage RHA for aseptic loosening when performed by lower-volume consultants and at lower-volume institutions, supporting the move towards the centralization of such cases towards higher-volume units and surgeons. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(10):1050–1058

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. 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. 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) 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. 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. 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