Obesity is associated with higher rates of revision following medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

During the last 5 years, there has been an increase in the use of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) to treat knee osteoarthritis in Australia, and these account for almost 6% of annual knee replacement procedures. However, there is debate as to whether a fixed bearing or a mobile bearing design is best for decreasing revision for loosening and disease progression as well as improving survivorship. Small sample sizes and possible confounding in the studies on the topic may have masked differences between fixed and mobile bearing designs. Using data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR), we selected the four contemporary designs of medial compartment UKA: mobile bearing, fixed modular, all-polyethylene, and fixed molded metal-backed used for the treatment of osteoarthritis to ask: (1) How do the different designs of unicompartmental knees compare with survivorship as measured by cumulative percentage revision (CPR)? (2) Is there a difference in the revision rate between designs as a function of patient sex or age? (3) Do the reasons for revision differ, and what types of revision procedures are performed when these UKA are revised? The AOANJRR longitudinally maintains data on all primary and revision joint arthroplasties, with nearly 100% capture. The study population included all UKA procedures undertaken for osteoarthritis between September 1999 and December 2018. Of 56,628 unicompartmental knees recorded during the study period, 50,380 medial UKA procedures undertaken for osteoarthritis were included in the analysis after exclusion of procedures with unknown bearing types (31 of 56,628), lateral or patellofemoral compartment UKA procedures (5657 of 56,628), and those performed for a primary diagnosis other than osteoarthritis (560 of 56,628). There were 50,380 UKA procedures available for analysis. The study group consisted of 40% (20,208 of 50,380) mobile bearing UKA, 35% (17,822 of 50,380) fixed modular UKA, 23% (11,461 of 50,380) all-polyethylene UKA, and 2% (889 of 50,380) fixed molded metal-backed UKA. There were similar sex proportions and age distributions for each bearing group. The overall mean age of patients was 65 ± 9.4 years, and 55% (27,496 of 50,380) of patients were males. The outcome measure was the CPR, which was defined using Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship to describe the time to the first revision. Hazard ratios from Cox proportional hazards models, adjusted for sex and age, were performed to compare the revision rates among groups. The cohort was stratified into age groups of younger than 65 years and 65 years and older to compare revision rates as a function of age. Differences among bearing groups for the major causes and modes of revision were assessed using hazard ratios. At 15 years, fixed modular UKA had a CPR of 16% (95% CI 15% to 17%). In comparison, the CPR was 23% (95% CI 22% to 24%) for mobile bearing UKA, 26% (95% CI 24% to 27%) for all-polyethylene UKA, and 20% (95% CI 16% to 24%) for fixed molded metal-backed UKA. The lower revision rate for fixed modular UKA was seen through the entire period compared with mobile bearing UKA (hazard ratio 1.5 [95% CI 1.4 to 1.6]; p < 0.001) and fixed molded metal-backed UKA (HR 1.3 [95% CI 1.1 to 1.6]; p = 0.003), but it varied with time compared with all-polyethylene UKA. The findings were consistent when stratified by sex or age. Although all-polyethylene UKA had the highest revision rate overall and for patients younger than 65 years, for patients aged 65 years and older, there was no difference between all-polyethylene and mobile bearing UKA. When compared with fixed modular UKA, a higher revision risk for loosening was shown in both mobile bearing UKA (HR 1.7 [95% CI 1.5 to 1.9]; p < 0.001) and all-polyethylene UKA (HR 2.4 [95% CI 2.1 to 2.7]; p < 0.001). The revision risk for disease progression was higher for all-polyethylene UKA at all time points (HR 1.4 [95% CI 1.3 to 1.6]; p < 0.001) and for mobile bearing UKA after 8 years when each were compared with fixed modular UKA (8 to 12 years: HR 1.4 [95% CI 1.2 to 1.7]; p < 0.001; 12 or more years: HR 1.9 [95% CI 1.5 to 2.3]; p < 0.001). The risk of revision to TKA was higher for mobile bearing UKA compared with fixed modular UKA (HR 1.4 [95% CI 1.3 to 1.5]; p < 0.001). If UKA is to be considered for the treatment of isolated medial compartment osteoarthritis, the fixed modular UKA bearing has the best survivorship of the current UKA designs. Level III, therapeutic study.

Background Long-term implant survivorship in THA and TKA involves a combination of factors related to the patient, the implants used, and the decision-making and technical performance of the surgeon. It is unclear which of these factors is the most important in reducing the proportion of revision surgery. Questions/purposes We used data from a large national registry to ask: In patients receiving primary THA and TKA for a diagnosis of osteoarthritis, do (1) the reasons for revision and (2) patient factors, the implants used, and the surgeon or surgical factors differ between surgeons performing THA and TKA who have a lower revision rate compared with all other surgeons? Methods Data were analyzed for all THA and TKA procedures performed for a diagnosis of osteoarthritis from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) from September 1, 1999, when collection began, to December 31, 2018. The AOANJRR obtains data on more than 98% of joint arthroplasties performed in Australia. The 5-year cumulative percent revision (CPR) was identified for all THAs and TKAs performed for a diagnosis of osteoarthritis with 95% confidence intervals (overall CPR); the 5-year CPR with 95% CIs for each surgeon was calculated for THA and TKA separately. For surgeons to be included in the analysis, they had to have performed at least 50 procedures and have a 5-year CPR. The 5-year CPR with 95% CIs for each THA and TKA surgeon was compared with the overall CPR. Two groups were defined: low revision rate surgeons (the upper confidence level for a given surgeon at 5 years is less than 3.84% for THA and 4.32% for TKA), and all other surgeons (any surgeon whose CPR was higher than those thresholds). The thresholds were determined by setting a cutoff at 20% above the upper confidence level for that class. The approach we used to define a low revision rate surgeon was similar to that used by the AOANJRR for determining the better-performing prostheses and is recommended by the International Prosthesis Benchmarking Working Group. By defining the groups in this way, a significant difference between these two groups is created. Determining a reason for this difference is the purpose of presenting the proportions of different factors within each group. The study group for THA included 116 low revision rate surgeons, who performed 88,392 procedures (1619 revised, 10-year CPR 2.7% [95% CI 2.6% to 2.9%]) and 433 other surgeons, who performed 170,094 procedures (6911 revised, 10-year CPR 5.9% [95% CI 5.7% to 6.0%]). The study group for TKA consisted of 144 low revision rate surgeons, who performed 159,961 procedures (2722 revised, 10-year CPR 2.6% [95% CI 2.5% to 2.8%]) and 534 other surgeons, who performed 287,232 procedures (12,617 revised, 10-year CPR 6.4% [95% CI 6.3% to 6.6%]). These groups were defined a priori by their rate of revision, and the purpose of this study was to explore potential reasons for this observed difference. Results For THA, the difference in overall revision rate between low revision rate surgeons and other surgeons was driven mainly by fewer revisions for dislocation, followed by component loosening and fracture in patients treated by low revision rate surgeons. For TKA, the difference in overall revision rate between low revision rate surgeons and other surgeons was driven mainly by fewer revisions for aseptic loosening, followed by instability and patellofemoral complications in patients treated by low revision rate surgeons. Patient-related factors were generally similar between low revision rate surgeons and other surgeons for both THA and TKA. Regarding THA, there were differences in implant factors, with low revision rate surgeons using fewer types of implants that have been identified as having a higher-than-anticipated rate of revision within the AOANJRR. Low revision rate surgeons used a higher proportion of hybrid fixation, although cementless fixation remained the most common choice. For surgeon factors, low revision rate surgeons were more likely to perform more than 100 THA procedures per year, while other surgeons were more likely to perform fewer than 50 THA procedures per year. In general, the groups of surgeons (low revision rate surgeons and other surgeons) differed less in terms of years of surgical experience than they did in terms of the number of cases they performed each year, although low revision rate surgeons, on average, had more years of experience and performed more cases per year. Regarding TKA, there were more differences in implant factors than with THA, with low revision rate surgeons more frequently performing patellar resurfacing, using an AOANJRR-identified best-performing prosthesis combination (with the lowest rates of revision), using fewer implants that have been identified as having a higher-than-anticipated rate of revision within the AOANJRR, using highly crosslinked polyethylene, and using a higher proportion of cemented fixation compared with other surgeons. For surgeon factors, low revision rate surgeons were more likely to perform more than 100 TKA procedures per year, whereas all other surgeons were more likely to perform fewer than 50 procedures per year. Again, generally, the groups of surgeons (low revision rate surgeons and other surgeons) differed less in terms of years of surgical experience than they did in terms of the number of cases they performed annually, although low revision rate surgeons, on average, had more years of experience and performed more cases per year. Conclusion THAs and TKAs performed by surgeons with the lowest revision rates in Australia show reductions in all of the leading causes of revision for both THA and TKA, in particular, causes of revision related to the technical performance of these procedures. Patient factors were similar between low revision rate surgeons and all other surgeons for both THA and TKA. Low revision rate THA surgeons were more likely to use cement fixation selectively. Low revision rate TKA surgeons were more likely to use patella resurfacing, crosslinked polyethylene, and cemented fixation. Low revision rate THA and TKA surgeons were more likely to use an AOANJRR-identified best-performing prosthesis combination and to use fewer implants identified by the AOANJRR as having a higher-than-anticipated revision rate. To reduce the rate of revision THA and TKA, surgeons should consider addressing modifiable factors related to implant selection. Future research should identify surgeon factors beyond annual case volume that are important to improving implant survivorship. Level of Evidence Level III, therapeutic study.

Update This article was updated on February 6, 2019, because of a previous error. On page 105, in the subsection titled “Outcomes and Design” the sentence that had read “Furthermore, in a retrospective review, Houdek et al. 48 , at a mean follow-up of 8 years, demonstrated improved survivorship of 9,999 metal-backed compared with 1,645 all-polyethylene tibial components, over all age groups and most BMI categories” now reads “Furthermore, in a retrospective review, Houdek et al. 48 , at a mean follow-up of 8 years, demonstrated inferior survivorship of 9,999 metal-backed compared with 1,645 all-polyethylene tibial components, over all age groups and most BMI categories.” An erratum has been published: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2019 Mar 20;101(6):e26.

Level III, therapeutic study.

Loss of glenoid fixation is a key factor affecting the survivorship of primary total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). It is not known whether the lower revision rates associated with crosslinked polyethylene (XLPE) compared with those of non-XLPE identified in hip and knee arthroplasty apply to shoulder arthroplasty. We used data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) to compare the revision rates of primary stemmed anatomic TSA using XLPE to procedures using non-XLPE. In patients receiving a primary stemmed anatomic TSA for osteoarthritis, we asked: (1) Does the rate of revision or reason for revision vary between XLPE and non-XLPE all-polyethylene glenoid components? (2) Is there any difference in the revision rate when XLPE is compared with non-XLPE across varying head sizes? (3) Is there any difference in survival among prosthesis combinations with all-polyethylene glenoid components when they are used with XLPE compared with non-XLPE? Data were extracted from the AOANJRR from April 16, 2004, to December 31, 2020. The AOANJRR collects data on more than 97% of joint replacements performed in Australia. The study population included all primary, stemmed, anatomic TSA procedures performed for osteoarthritis using all-polyethylene glenoid components. Procedures were grouped into XLPE and non-XLPE bearing surfaces for comparison. Of the 10,102 primary stemmed anatomic TSAs in the analysis, 39% (3942 of 10,102) used XLPE and 61% (6160 of 10,102) used non-XLPE. There were no differences in age, gender, or follow-up between groups. Revision rates were determined using Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship to describe the time to the first revision, with censoring at the time of death or closure of the database at the time of analysis. Revision was defined as removal, replacement, or addition of any component of a joint replacement. The unadjusted cumulative percent revision after the primary arthroplasty (with 95% confidence intervals [CIs]) was calculated and compared using Cox proportional hazard models adjusted for age, gender, fixation, and surgeon volume. Further analyses were performed stratifying according to humeral head size, and a prosthesis-specific analysis adjusted for age and gender was also performed. This analysis was restricted to prosthesis combinations that were used at least 150 times, accounted for at least four revisions, had XLPE and non-XLPE options available, and had a minimum of 3 years of follow-up. Non - XLPE had a higher risk of revision than XLPE after 1.5 years (HR 2.3 [95% CI 1.6 to 3.1]; p < 0.001). The cumulative percent revision at 12 years was 5% (95% CI 4% to 6%) for XLPE and 9% (95% CI 8% to 10%) for non-XLPE. There was no difference in the rate of revision for head sizes smaller than 44 mm. Non-XLPE had a higher rate of revision than XLPE for head sizes 44 to 50 mm after 2 years (HR 2.3 [95% CI 1.5 to 3.6]; p < 0.001) and for heads larger than 50 mm for the entire period (HR 2.2 [95% CI 1.4 to 3.6]; p < 0.001). Two prosthesis combinations fulfilled the inclusion criteria for the prosthesis-specific analysis. One had a higher risk of revision when used with non-XLPE compared with XLPE after 1.5 years (HR 3.7 [95% CI 2.2 to 6.3]; p < 0.001). For the second prosthesis combination, no difference was found in the rate of revision between the two groups. These AOANJRR data demonstrate that noncrosslinked, all-polyethylene glenoid components have a higher revision rate compared with crosslinked, all-polyethylene glenoid components when used in stemmed anatomic TSA for osteoarthritis. As polyethylene type is likely an important determinant of revision risk, crosslinked polyethylene should be used when available, particularly for head sizes larger than 44 mm. Further studies will need to be undertaken after larger numbers of shoulder arthroplasties have been performed to determine whether this reduction in revision risk associated with XLPE bears true for all TSA designs. Level III, therapeutic study.

Computer navigation and image-derived instrumentation (IDI) are technology-based methods developed to improve outcomes and potentially reduce revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA). IDI refers to the use of manufactured, patient-specific surgical jigs. Conflicting reports exist on IDI-associated improvements in outcomes. The primary aim of the current study was to compare the rates of revision among TKA cases in which components were initially implanted with use of IDI, computer navigation, or neither of these methods ("other" TKA). The secondary aim was to determine whether the outcomes of IDI differed for specific subgroups. Data were obtained from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) for the 3 TKA groups: IDI, computer-navigated, and other TKA. The study period was from the first IDI procedure recorded by the AOANJRR (April 2010) to December 31, 2016. The analysis was restricted to primary TKA cases undertaken for osteoarthritis and involving patellar resurfacing and the use of a cross-linked polyethylene insert. Subanalyses were performed to evaluate the effects of age, sex, implantation method, IDI manufacturer, prosthetic design, and prosthesis type on the rates of revision. Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship described the time to first revision. Hazard ratios (HRs, Cox proportional hazards models) with adjustment for age and sex were used to compare revision rates. IDI was used in 5,486 primary TKA procedures. There was no significant difference among the groups in the cumulative percent revision (CPR) at 5 years: 3.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.4% to 4.6%) for IDI, 2.4% (95% CI, 2.2% to 2.7%) for the computer-navigated group, and 2.5% (95% CI, 2.3% to 2.7%) for other TKA. Posterior-stabilized TKA with use of the IDI method had a significantly higher rate of revision at >3 months (HR, 1.45 [95% CI, 1.02 to 2.04]; p = 0.036), as did IDI TKA in the ≤65-year-old patient cohort (HR, 1.52 [95% CI, 1.10 to 2.09]; p = 0.010), compared with computer-navigated TKA. Patellar revision was significantly more likely in the IDI group. IDI TKA demonstrated no overall difference in early to mid-term revision rates compared with standard implantation methods. However, elevated rates of revision were seen with posterior-stabilized TKA, in patients ≤65 years of age, and for patellar revision, meaning that this method should be used with some caution and requires further study. Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

BackgroundAn increased risk of periprosthetic fracture and aseptic loosening is reported when the direct anterior approach (DAA) is used for total hip arthroplasty (THA), especially with cementless implants. We assessed the rate of revision comparing collared and collarless femoral stems when using the DAA for THA. MethodsWe used data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry for primary THA for osteoarthritis inserted with the DAA between January 2015 and December 2022. There were 48,567 THAs that used the DAA (26,690 collarless cementless, 10,161 collared cementless, and 11,716 cemented). Cumulative percent revision was calculated for all-cause revision, revision for periprosthetic femoral fractures, and aseptic femoral stem loosening. Cox proportional hazard ratios [HRs] were used to compare the revision of collared and collarless cementless stems. We also compared collared cementless stems and cemented stems. ResultsA higher rate of all-cause revision within 3 months of surgery was observed with collarless compared to collared cementless implants (HR: 1.99 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.56 to 2.54]; P < .001). Similarly, collarless cementless implants were associated with a greater rate of revision for fracture in the first 6 months (HR: 2.90 [95% CI, 1.89 to 4.45]; P < .001) and after 6 months (HR 10.04 [95% CI 1.38 to 73.21]; P = .02), as well as an increased rate of revision for aseptic loosening after 2 years (HR: 5.76 [95% CI, 1.81 to 18.28], P = .003). Collared cementless and cemented stems performed similarly. ConclusionCollared stems were associated with a reduced rate of all-cause revision for cementless THA performed via the DAA. The reduction in risk may be due to protection from periprosthetic femoral fracture and aseptic loosening.

Many factors, including some related to the patient, implant selection, and the surgeon's skill and expertise, likely contribute to the risk of THA revision. However, surgeon factors have not been extensively analyzed in national joint replacement registries, and there is limited insight into their potential as a confounding variable for revision outcomes; for example, if surgeons with higher revision rates choose more successful prostheses, would this alone reduce their revision rate? This study used Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) data for patients receiving primary THA for a diagnosis of osteoarthritis to answer the following questions: (1) Will the difference in revision rates among surgeons change or disappear when only procedures performed with the best prostheses or prostheses that have been identified as having higher revision rates are considered? (2) Is the benefit associated with using the best-performing prostheses different among surgeons with different revision rates? (3) Do the reasons for revision differ between surgeons with higher rates of revision compared with surgeons with lower rates of revision? All primary THA procedures performed and recorded in the AOANJRR for osteoarthritis from September 1, 1999, to December 31, 2022, were considered for inclusion. Each THA prosthesis used was categorized per the AOANJRR as superior-performing, middle-performing, or identified as having a higher rate of revision by the AOANJRR benchmarking process. Surgeons who had performed at least 50 procedures and had a recorded 2-year cumulative percent revision (CPR) were included. After applying these restrictions, the study consisted of 302,066 procedures performed by 476 known surgeons. For the primary outcome measure of all-cause revision, we examined the variation in all-cause revision rates across individual surgeons when different classes of devices were used to assess whether differences between surgeons persisted when accounting for prosthesis selection. For the purposes of descriptively comparing reasons for revision between surgeons with higher-than-average or lower-than-average risk of revision, surgeons were classified into quartiles and outcomes compared when these surgeons used the same class of prosthesis. The difference in rates of revision among surgeons remained even after accounting for the effects of the prosthesis used. For any given surgeon, identified prostheses were associated with higher revision rates compared with both superior-performing prostheses (HR 1.73 [95% CI 1.57 to 1.92]; p < 0.01) and medium-performing prostheses (HR 1.31 [95% CI 1.20 to 1.43]; p < 0.01). All surgeons demonstrated a lower revision rate when using a superior-performing prosthesis, but the difference was greatest for surgeons with the highest rates of revision. Surgeons with the lowest rates of revision had a 19-year CPR of 3.9% (95% CI 3.0% to 5.0%) when using a superior-performing prosthesis compared with 5.4% (95% CI 4.0% to 7.3%) for procedures in which an identified prosthesis was used. Surgeons with the highest rates of revision had a 19-year CPR of 10.9% (95% CI 8.6% to 13.8%) when using a superior-performing prosthesis, and this increased to 20.4% (95% CI 18.0% to 23.1%) for procedures in which an identified prosthesis was used. The reasons for revision differ between surgeons, with causes of revision likely preventable and not related to the prosthesis choice being apparent for surgeons with high revision rates. The choice of implant and the surgeon performing the index procedure both affected the risk of revision as well as the reasons for revision. Surgeons could improve the survivorship of the arthroplasties they perform by choosing implants identified by registries as having lower revision rates. Acceptance of the fact that surgeons have different revision rates is needed, and detailed analysis is required to explain why surgeons with high revision rates have increased rates of likely preventable revisions, and outside of prosthesis choice, how revision rates can be lowered. The influence of training, fellowship completion, ongoing education, patient selection, indications for surgery, and factors underlying prosthesis decision-making should be assessed. The surgeon performing THA is an important confounder that should be considered in future registry analyses. Level III, therapeutic study.

Dislocation is one of the most common causes of a re-revision after a revision THA. Dual-mobility constructs and large femoral head bearings (≥ 36 mm) are known options for mitigating this risk. However, it is unknown which of these choices is better for reducing the risk of dislocation and all-cause re-revision surgery. It is also unknown whether there is a difference between dual-mobility constructs and large femoral head bearings according to the size of the acetabular component. We used data from a large national registry to ask: In patients undergoing revision THA for aseptic causes after a primary THA performed for osteoarthritis, (1) Does the proportion of re-revision surgery for prosthesis dislocation differ between revision THAs performed with dual-mobility constructs and those performed with large femoral head bearings? (2) Does the proportion of re-revision surgery for all aseptic causes differ between revision THAs performed with dual-mobility constructs and those performed with large femoral head bearings? (3) Is there a difference when the results are stratified by acetabular component size? Data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) were analyzed for 1295 first-revision THAs for aseptic causes after a primary THA performed for osteoarthritis. The study period was from January 2008-when the first dual-mobility prosthesis was recorded-to December 2019. There were 502 dual-mobility constructs and 793 large femoral head bearings. There was a larger percentage of women in the dual-mobility construct group (67% [334 of 502]) compared with the large femoral head bearing group (51% [402 of 793]), but this was adjusted for in the statistical analysis. Patient ages were similar for the dual-mobility construct group (67 ± 11 years) and the large femoral head group (65 ± 12 years). American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class and BMI distributions were similar. The mean follow-up was shorter for dual-mobility constructs at 2 ± 1.8 years compared with 4 ± 2.9 years for large femoral head bearings. The cumulative percent revision (CPR) was determined for a diagnosis of prosthesis dislocation as well as for all aseptic causes (excluding infection). Procedures using metal-on-metal bearings were excluded. The time to the re-revision was described using Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship, with right censoring for death or database closure at the time of analysis. The unadjusted CPR was estimated each year of the first 5 years for dual-mobility constructs and for each of the first 9 years for large femoral head bearings, with 95% confidence intervals using unadjusted pointwise Greenwood estimates. The apparent shorter follow-up of the dual-mobility construct group relates to the more recent increase in dual-mobility numbers recorded in the registry. The results were adjusted for age, gender, and femoral fixation. Results were subanalyzed for acetabular component sizes < 58 mm and ≥ 58 mm, set a priori on the basis of biomechanical and other registry data. There was no difference in the proportion of re-revision for prosthesis dislocation between dual-mobility constructs and large femoral head bearings (hazard ratio 1.22 [95% CI 0.70 to 2.12]; p = 0.49). At 5 years, the CPR of the re-revision for prosthesis dislocation was 4.0% for dual mobility constructs (95% CI 2.3% to 6.8%) and 4.1% for large femoral head bearings (95% CI 2.7% to 6.1%). There was no difference in the proportion of all aseptic-cause second revisions between dual-mobility constructs and large femoral head bearings (HR 1.02 [95% CI 0.76 to 1.37]; p = 0.89). At 5 years, the CPR of dual-mobility constructs was 17.6% for all aseptic-cause second revision (95% CI 12.6% to 24.3%) and 17.8% for large femoral head bearings (95% CI 14.9% to 21.2%). When stratified by acetabular component sizes less than 58 mm and at least 58 mm, there was no difference in the re-revision CPR for dislocation or for all aseptic causes between dual-mobility constructs and large femoral head bearings. Either dual-mobility constructs or large femoral head bearings can be used in revision THA, regardless of acetabular component size, as they did not differ in terms of re-revision rates for dislocation and all aseptic causes in this registry study. Longer term follow-up is required to assess whether complications develop with either implant or whether a difference in revision rates becomes apparent. Ongoing follow-up and comparison in a registry format would seem the best way to compare long-term complications and revision rates. Future studies should also compare surgeon factors and whether they influence decision-making between prosthesis options and second revision rates. Nested randomized controlled trials in national registries would seem a viable option for future research. Level III, therapeutic study.

Background and purpose Despite concerns regarding a higher risk of revision, unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) continues to be used as an alternative to total knee arthroplasty (TKA). There are, however, limited data on the subsequent outcome when a UKA is revised. We examined the survivorship for primary UKA procedures that have been revised.Methods We used data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) to analyze the survivorship of 1,948 revisions of primary UKA reported to the Registry between September 1999 and December 2008. This was compared to the results of revisions of primary TKA reported during the same period where both the femoral and tibial components were revised. The Kaplan-Meier method for modeling survivorship was used.Results When a primary UKA was revised to another UKA (both major and minor revisions), it had a cumulative per cent revision (CPR) of 28 and 30 at 3 years, respectively. The CPR at 3 years when a UKA was converted to a TKA was 10. This is similar to the 3-year CPR (12) found earlier for primary TKA where both the femoral and tibial components were revised.Interpretation When a UKA requires revision, the best outcome is achieved when it is converted to a TKA. This procedure does, however, have a major risk of re-revision, which is similar to the risk of re-revision of a primary TKA that has had both the femoral and tibial components revised.

There is a lack of clinical outcomes reported for the rotating bearing knee (RBK) total knee arthroplasty (TKA), which is a second-generation rotating platform knee, with purported benefits over earlier versions. The purpose of the study was to report the complications, short-term (minimum 1 year) patient-reported outcomes and long-term (up to 15 years) procedure survival in a consecutive series of patients receiving a rotating platform TKA (RBK) from an independent clinic. A retrospective analysis of a single-surgeon, private/public practice, with prospectively collected data in a subset of patients were performed. A total of 1,130 procedures (primary, revision from unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) to TKA) were crossmatched with manufacturer records. Clinical outcomes (complications, reoperations) were summarized and linked to patient-reported outcome measures (Eq. 5D, KSS-function, Oxford knee score [OKS]). OKS results were classified using minimally clinical important difference (MCID) and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS). PROMs were summarized and regression models used to determine relationships between patient factors and outcomes in this cohort. Cumulative percent revision was reported by the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) and compared between the senior author and national data using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. We report a complication rate of 19.7% with the majority (> 60%) being thromboembolic events and complaints of stiffness. Significant improvements were observed in general health, knee pain, and function with > 89% exceeding the MCID for the OKS and > 65% exceeding the PASS for the OKS at an average follow-up of 3.2 years. We report a cumulative revision rate of 4.3% at 5 years and 4.8% at 14 years, with significantly lower revision rates in females and patients aged 55 to 64 years compared with AOANJRR data for fixed bearing designs. The RBK rotating platform TKA provides good functional outcomes, with relatively low revision and complications rates at up to 14 years follow-up. This design in conjunction with a gap balancing technique may be advantageous in certain patient subgroups.

Total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) outcomes may be affected in rural settings where resources can differ from urban hospitals. This study compared revision rates of primary TSA performed in rural and urban hospitals analyzed from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) between 1 January 2008 and 31 December 2023. Rural and urban hospital location was defined by nationally accepted criteria. We included high-volume surgeons (upper two quartiles and undertook TSA in both settings) stratified for anatomical or reverse shoulder arthroplasty, and glenoid morphology. The cumulative percent revision (CPR) was determined using Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship and hazard ratios (HRs) from Cox proportional hazard models adjusted for age and sex. A total of 16,179 TSA procedures were performed; 3,456 (21%) in rural and 12,723 (79%) in urban hospitals. CPR at five years was 4.1% (95% CI 3.4 to 4.9) for rural TSA and 5.5% (95% CI 5.0 to 6.0) for urban hospitals. Rural hospitals had lower overall revision rates compared with urban hospitals (entire period, HR 0.81 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.99); p = 0.037). There was a higher rate of revision for primary anatomical TSA in rural centres for the first six months, followed by lower rates of revision (rural vs urban 0.6 months, HR 2.04, p = 0.011; six months to 1.5 years, HR 0.52, p 0.008; 1.5 years +, HR 0.36, p < 0.001). The revision rate for primary reverse TSA did not differ between rural and urban hospitals (entire period, HR 0.87, p = 0.233). Patients aged < 65 years had a lower revision risk in a rural hospital, but there was no difference in patients aged > 65 years. Sex did not change TSA revision rates in rural and urban hospitals. Revision rates for TSA procedures performed in rural hospitals were equivalent to urban hospitals. Our study supports the provision of TSA services in rural hospitals when undertaken by high-volume surgeons.

The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship of obesity with all-cause revision and revision for infection, loosening, instability, and pain after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) performed in Australia. Data for patients undergoing primary TKA for osteoarthritis from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2020, were obtained from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR). The rates of all-cause revision and revision for infection, loosening, instability, and pain were compared for non-obese patients (body mass index [BMI], 18.50 to 29.99 kg/m 2 ), class-I and II obese patients (BMI, 30.00 to 39.99 kg/m 2 ), and class-III obese patients (BMI, ≥40.00 kg/m 2 ). The results were adjusted for age, sex, tibial fixation, prosthesis stability, patellar component usage, and computer navigation usage. During the study period, 141,673 patients underwent primary TKA for osteoarthritis in Australia; of these patients, 48.0% were class-I or II obese, and 10.6% were class-III obese. The mean age was 68.2 years, and 54.7% of patients were female. The mean follow-up period was 2.8 years. Of the 2,655 revision procedures identified, the reasons for the procedures included infection in 39.7%, loosening in 14.8%, instability in 12.0%, and pain in 6.1%. Class-I and II obese patients had a higher risk of all-cause revision (hazard ratio [HR], 1.12 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.03 to 1.22]; p = 0.007) and revision for infection (HR, 1.25 [95% CI, 1.10 to 1.43]; p = 0.001) than non-obese patients. Class-III obese patients had a higher risk of all-cause revision after 1 year (HR, 1.30 [95% CI, 1.14 to 1.52]; p < 0.001), revision for infection after 3 months (HR, 1.72 [95% CI, 1.33 to 2.17]; p < 0.001), and revision for loosening (HR, 1.39 [95% CI, 1.00 to 1.89]; p = 0.047) than non-obese patients. The risks of revision for instability and pain were similar among groups. Obese patients with knee osteoarthritis should be counseled with regard to the increased risks associated with TKA, so they can make informed decisions about their health care. Health services and policymakers need to address the issue of obesity at a population level. Prognostic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

There are limited medium-term outcome data available for the Repicci II device in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). The purpose of this study was to report the medium-term (minimum 2 years) patient-reported outcomes and long-term (up to 14 years) procedure survival in a consecutive series of patients undergoing an inlay prosthesis UKA (Repicci II) at an independent orthopaedic clinic. Patients presenting with medially localized unicompartmental knee osteoarthritis and meeting the criteria appropriate for UKA were recruited to a clinical patient registry at the time of presentation. A cemented unicompartmental prosthesis (Repicci II) was implanted using minimally invasive techniques with rapid postoperative mobilization. Patients were asked to complete patient-reported outcomes preoperatively and annually postoperatively. A procedure list was cross-matched with the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR), and an analysis of procedure survival was performed with comparison to the national data for UKA. Data from a cohort of 661 primary medial compartment UKA procedures performed in 551 patients over a 15-year period were extracted from the clinical patient registry. Significant improvements were maintained in general health, disease symptoms, pain, and function at an average follow-up of 9 years compared with preoperative data. Threshold analysis revealed that >65% of patients exceeded Patient Acceptable Symptom State at the latest follow-up, with >80% within or exceeding age-matched norms for general health. Cumulative revision rate was significantly lower than that reported for UKA in the AOANJRR at up to 13 years follow-up. This series represents a lower cumulative revision rate than previously reported, with >65% of patients reporting satisfactory functional outcomes at an average of 9 years from surgery. Surgical options for treating unicompartmental knee osteoarthritis could include UKA as a viable alternative; however, clear definitions of procedure success and its overall cost-benefit ratio in the context of ongoing management of knee osteoarthritis remain to be elucidated.

Some surgeons contend that unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) can easily be revised to a TKA when revision is called for, whereas others believe that this can be complex and technically demanding. There has been little research regarding the efficacy or rationale of using metal augmentation and tibial stem extensions when revising a UKA to a TKA. QUESTION/PURPOSES: (1) Is the use of stem extensions for the tibial component associated with increased survival when revising a UKA to a TKA? (2) Is the addition of modular augments associated with increased survival compared with stem extensions alone? (3) Is TKA design (minimally stabilized versus posterior-stabilized) or (4) tibial fixation (cemented versus cementless) associated with differences in survivorship? Data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) were used to analyze implant survival after revision of a UKA to a TKA, comparing results in which tibial components were used with and without modular components. The groups analyzed were TKA without a stem extension, those in which a tibial stem extension was used, and those in which a tibial stem extension was used together with an augment. There were 4438 revisions of UKAs to TKAs available for analysis. The mean duration of followup of patients having the TKA revisions was 5 years (SD, 3.5 years). There were 2901 (65%) procedures in which a tibial stem extension was not used, 870 (20%) procedures with a tibial stem extension, and 667 (15%) with a tibial stem extension and metallic augment. Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship were calculated and hazard ratios (HRs) from Cox proportional hazard models, adjusting for age and sex, were used to compare the rate of revision among groups. The overall 10-year cumulative percent revision (CPR) for UKA revised to a TKA was 16%. At 10 years, the CPR was increased when a stem extension was not used (19%; 95% confidence interval [CI],16.5-20.7 without a stem extension compared with 13%; 95% CI, 9.2-17.0 with a stem extension; entire period HR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.10-1.89; p = 0.007). There was no difference in the 10-year CPR when an augment was used together with a stem extension compared with a stem extension alone (HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.85-1.86; p = 0.251). When minimally stabilized and posterior-stabilized TKAs were compared, there was no difference in survivorship. Minimally stabilized TKA designs without stem extensions showed higher CPR compared with when stem extensions were used (HR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.16-2.70; p = 0.007), whereas posterior-stabilized designs without stem extensions showed higher CPR only when compared with when stem extensions and augments were both used (HR, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.24-3.77; p = 0.006). Cementless fixation of the tibial component resulted in a higher CPR than when cement was used (HR, 1.36; 95% CI 1.08-1.71; p = 0.008). In this registry study, the risk of repeat revision after revision of a UKA to a TKA was lower when a tibial stem extension was used, but no such difference was found with respect to augments. Our study did not account for the degree of bone loss or surgeon preference when considering stems and augments. Further research to establish the degree of bone loss associated with UKA to TKA revision procedures will help clarify these findings. Level III, therapeutic study.