Common Reason For Revision Research Articles

Revision total hip arthroplasty in patients with femoral bone loss using tapered rectangular femoral stem: a minimum 10 years' follow-up.

Revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) remains a significant challenge when there is severe femoral bone loss. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical and radiographic outcomes of revision THA in patients with femoral bone loss treated with Zweymüller SLR-Plus stem. A retrospective review of 82 patients who underwent revision THA using tapered rectangular femoral stem between 1997 and 2007 was undertaken. Of the 82 patients, 9 patients were lost to follow-up and were excluded from the study. The most common reason for revision was aseptic loosening (92%), periprosthetic femur fracture (5%), and infection (3%). Bone loss was categorised preoperatively according to the Paprosky classification. The mean clinical follow-up was 14 years (range 10-19 years). Their mean age at the time of index surgery was 54.7 ± 15.3 (range 30-82) years. The mean Harris Hip Score was significantly improved at final follow-up (68.1 ±10.3) compared with that before the revision surgery (30.4 ± 7.7) (p < 0.0001). Of the 75 stems, 69 (92%) stems were radiographically stable at the last evaluation. Among the 69 stems, 64 hips (85%) had radiographic evidence of bone ingrowth and 5 (5%) had stable fibrous fixation of the stem. Among the 7 hips that were re-revised, 5 hips were re-revised for aseptic loosening, whereas 2 were re-revised for an infection. Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis, with removal of the stem for any cause as the endpoint, revealed that the 15-year rate of survival of the components was 90% (95% CI, 0.83-0.97). Revision THA in patients with proximal femoral bone loss using Zweymüller SLR-Plus stem led to a high rate of osseointegration of the stem and good clinical results at long-term follow-up.

Surgical implications of the hip-spine relationship in total hip arthroplasty.

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is considered the most successful orthopedic surgical procedure of the last century with excellent survivorship up to 20-years. However, instability remains a major issue representing the most common reason for revision after THA. Hip-spine relationship has gained progressive interest between arthroplasty surgeons and its understanding is crucial in order to identify high-risk patients for postoperative dislocation. Spinal deformity and abnormal spinopelvic mobility have been associated with increased risk for instability, dislocation and revision THA. Preoperative workup begins with standing anteroposterior pelvis x-ray and lateral spinopelvic radiographs in the standing and sitting position. Hip-spine stiffness needs to be addressed before THA in consideration of adapting the preoperative planning to the patient’s characteristics. Acetabular component should be implanted with different anteversion and inclination angles according to the pattern of hip-spine motion in order to reduce the risk of impingement and consequent dislocation. Different algorithmic approaches have been proposed in case of concomitant hip-spine disease and in case of altered sagittal balance and pelvic mobility. The aim of this review is to investigate and clarify the hip-spine relationships and evaluate the impact on modern total hip arthroplasty.

Promising results of revision total hip arthroplasty using a hexagonal, modular, tapered stem in cases of aseptic loosening.

BackgroundModular stems are widely used in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) with aseptic loosening being a common reason for revision. Despite the good results reported on the use of modular stem designs, there are only few studies focusing on aseptic revisions and few studies on a hexagonal stem design. The goal of this study is to determine stem survival, clinical and functional outcome along with possible risk factors for implant failure in aseptic revision THA.MethodsWe retrospectively identified 53 patients with aseptic THA revision using a modular hexagonal stem with a minimum follow-up of two years. Femoral bone loss, radiographic and clinical outcomes as well as function measured using the Harris Hip Score (HHS) was assessed. Patients’ previous medical history was analyzed for comorbidities and the body mass index. Stem survival was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Possible risk factors for implant failure were analyzed using the log-rank test. The median age at revision was 69 (IQR 62–73) with a median follow up of 74 months.ResultsImplant survival rates amounted to 90.4% at 3 and 5 years. The median HHS improved by 47 points (34 (IQR 22–47) vs 81 (IQR 59–90) p<0.001). There was a reduced implant survival after 5 years when the revision stem was used following a previous cemented stem (83.4% vs 100%, p = 0.04).ConclusionA modular, hexagonal stem can be successfully used in aseptic revision THA with remarkable functional results and excellent survivorship. Revision of a cemented stem using this implant might result in reduced survival which must be considered when planning treatment.

Similar Risk of Revision After Kinematically Aligned, Patient-Specific Instrumented Total Knee Arthroplasty, and All Other Total Knee Arthroplasty: Combined Results From the Australian and New Zealand Joint Replacement Registries

BackgroundKinematic alignment (KA) in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) replicates individual knee joint line orientation and physiological soft tissue balance. There are limited data on the effect of KA on survivorship compared with other methods of implanting a TKA. The aim of this study was to compare the survivorship of the same design of TKA implanted with either patient-specific instrument (PSI) KA or with computer-assisted surgery and conventionally instrumented. MethodsWe performed an observational study of data from 2 national joint registries on all patients who underwent a TKA with a Triathlon cruciate-retaining TKA (Stryker, Mahwah, NJ) from January 2011 to December 31, 2013. The outcomes of knees performed with unrestricted KA using patient-specific instrument were compared with computer-assisted surgery and conventionally instrumented Triathlon cruciate-retaining TKA. The principal outcome measure was time to first revision using Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship. Cox proportional hazard ratios, adjusted for age and gender, were used to compare the 2 groups. ResultsThere were 20,512 TKA procedures recorded, of which 416 were performed using KA-PSI. The KA-PSI group was younger (66.8 ± 8.2 vs 68.3 ± 9.2, P = .001), with an identical gender distribution. The cumulative revision rate at 7 years was 3.1% for the KA-PSI Triathlon cohort and 3.0% for the other Triathlon TKA cohort (P = .89). The most common reasons for revision in the KA-PSI group were maltracking, patella erosion, and arthrofibrosis. ConclusionKinematically aligned Triathlon TKA using PSI has similar revision rate as all other Triathlon TKA.

Temporomandibular Joint Prosthesis Revision and/or Replacement Survey and Review of the Literature

The purpose of the present study was to report the temporomandibular joint (TMJ) alloplastic reconstruction (TMJR) revision and/or replacement rates and associated complication outcomes data gathered from experienced TMJ surgeons and to review the recent relevant data. A 21-question anonymous on-line survey was sent to all Commission on Dental Accreditation-approved oral and maxillofacial surgery program directors and to members of the European Society of TMJ Surgeons and the American Society of Temporomandibular Joint Surgeons. Of the surgeons sent the survey, 22% completed the full questionnaire. Most responses were from surgeons who routinely perform TMJR surgery (93.5%). Of the respondents, 28.3% had more than 30years of experience and 73.9% were full-time academic faculty. A total of 4638 TMJR procedures were recorded and analyzed. The incidence of TMJR revision (keeping the same device) was 3% and that of replacement (placing a new device) was 4.9%. The most common reason for revision was heterotopic ossification (27.5%). The most common reason for replacement was infection (21.1%). Revision was successful in 86.7% and replacement in 94.6% of the patients at the longest follow-up reported. The data from the present study have shown that the incidence is low and the success rate is high for TMJR revision and replacement.

Revision reasons and prosthesis selection of Crowe Ⅳ developmental dysplasia of hip after total hip arthroplasty

To investigate revision reasons and prosthesis selection of Crowe Ⅳ developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) after total hip arthroplasty (THA). A clinical data of 14 patients (15 hips) with Crowe Ⅳ DDH, who underwent a revision hip arthroplasty between January 2008 and May 2018, was retrospectively reviewed. There were 1 male (1 hip) and 13 females (14 hips). The age ranged from 27 to 63 years (mean, 45.0 years). There were 7 cases of left hip, 6 cases of right hip, and 1 case of bilateral hips. The prosthetic interfaces of primary THA were metal-on-polyethylene (MOP) in 9 hips, ceramic-on-ceramic (COC) in 4 hips, ceramic-on-polyethylene (COP) in 1 hip, and ceramic-on-metal in 1 hip. The time from primary THA to revision was 3-204 months (mean, 65.0 months). The causes of revision included aseptic loosening in 7 hips, dislocation in 3 hips, periprosthetic joint infection in 2 hips, osteolysis in 1 hip, nonunion of osteotomy in 1 hip, and a small-angle of femoral anteversion in 1 hip. Preoperative Harris score was 54.1±17.8 and the range of motion (ROM) of flexion was (92.7±20.2)°. Preoperative X-ray films showed the acetabular bone defect in 11 hips and osteolysis of femoral side in 4 hips. During the revision, the prostheses with COP and COC interfaces were used in 5 hips and 10 hips, respectively. Both acetabular and femoral revisions were performed in 11 hips and only femoral revision was performed in 4 hips. The mean operation time was 3.7 hours (range, 1.5-6.0 hours). The mean intraoperative blood loss was 940.0 mL (range, 200-2 000 mL). All patients were followed up 16-142 months (mean, 73.9 months). Postoperative X-ray films showed no difference in inclination and anteversion between primary THA and revision ( P>0.05). The height of rotation center and offset after revision were higher than those after primary THA, and the difference in offset was significant ( P<0.05). At last follow-up, the Harris score and ROM of flexion were 85.0±7.3 and (115.0±17.0)°, respectively, which were significantly higher when compared with those before revision ( t=8.909, P=0.000; t=4.911, P=0.000). Three hips underwent a re-revision operation. All protheses were fixed well and no radiolucent line, loosening, or subsidence was observed at last follow-up. The most common reason for revision in patients with Crowe Ⅳ DDH after THA was aseptic loosening. Due to high activity demand of this population, the prosthesis with MOP interface should be prevented and the prosthesis with COC interface could be alternative. Metal block, cup-cage, and reinforcement ring were reasonable solutions for reconstruction of acetabulum with severe bone defects and have satisfactory effectiveness. S-ROM prosthesis should be the preferred stem for neither primary THA or revision.

Corrosion Concerns? Trends in Metal-on-Polyethylene Total Hip Arthroplasty Revision Rates and Comparisons Against Ceramic-on-Polyethylene up to 10 Years of Follow-Up

BackgroundWe compared the revision risk between metal-on-polyethylene (MOP) and ceramic-on-polyethylene (COP) total hip arthroplasty patients and evaluated temporal changes in short-term revision risks for MOP patients. MethodsPrimary MOP (n = 9480) and COP (n = 3620) total hip arthroplasties were evaluated from the Medicare data set (October 2005 to December 2015) for revision risk, with up to 10 years of follow-up using multivariate analysis. Temporal change in the short-term revision risk for MOP was evaluated (log-rank and Wilcoxon tests). ResultsRevision incidence was 3.8% for COP and 4.3% for MOP. MOP short-term revision risk did not change over time (P ≥ .844 at 1 year and .627 at 2 years). Dislocation was the most common reason for revision (MOP: 23.5%; COP: 24.8%). Overall adjusted revision risks were not different between MOP and COP up to 10 years of follow-up (P ≥ .181). ConclusionsConcerns with corrosion for metal heads do not appear to result in significantly elevated revision risk for MOP at up to 10 years. Corrosion does not appear as a primary reason for revision compared to other mechanisms.

Do trabecular metal cups achieve better results when compared to hemispherical porous titanium cups in acetabular revision surgery?

Trabecular metal (TM) cups were introduced in order to achieve better ingrowth and stability of the cup in acetabular revision surgery. As their use has evolved over time, we have queried whether TM cups would improve results in terms of the rate of aseptic loosening when compared to historical uncemented porous titanium cups used in revision surgery for acetabular bone loss in Hospital La Paz (Madrid, Spain). We retrospectively reviewed 197 acetabular revisions performed between 1991 and 2015. Titanium cups were used in 81 cases and TM cups in 116. The mean follow-up was 8.1 years (range 1-15); 12.0 ± 7.8 for titanium group and 5.4 ± 3.1 for TM group. The most common reason for revision was aseptic loosening. A Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to determine the survival of the cup, with radiological failure and re-revision due to aseptic loosening as the endpoints. Cox multivariate regression analyses were performed to assess different risk factors for failure. 1 TM cup and 1 titanium cup were re-revised due to aseptic loosening (p = 0.61). Radiological cup loosening was observed in 4 TM cups and 2 titanium cups (p = 1.0). At 6 years, the probability of not having radiological cup loosening was 97.4% (95% CI, 93.9-100) for the titanium cups and 95.1% for the TM cups (95% CI, 90.1-99.9) (p = 0.59). Another 5 cups were re-revised due to dislocation. Hips with a greater Paprosky defect showed a higher risk of loosening (p < 0.05, hazard risk (HR) 3.04; 95% CI, 0.97-9.54). This study shows there was no significant difference in re-revision due to aseptic loosening or radiological loosening between titanium and TM cups in revision surgery for acetabular bone loss. Both types of cups demonstrate excellent results with a low failure rate and minimal complications.

Mortality and Implant Survival With Simultaneous and Staged Bilateral Total Hip Arthroplasty: Experience From the Australian Orthopedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry

BackgroundTotal hip arthroplasty (THA) is an effective procedure for relieving pain and restoring function in osteoarthritis. A significant proportion of patients have severe disease bilaterally. Consensus regarding safety and selection of patients for simultaneous bilateral THA or the optimal timing for staged THA has not been reached. The aim of this study is to compare rates, causes of revision, and 30-day mortality between simultaneous and staged bilateral THA using data from the Australian Orthopedic National Joint Replacement Registry. MethodsData for 12,359 bilateral THA procedures were collected from September, 1999 to December, 2017. Rates and causes of revision and 30-day mortality were obtained for simultaneous bilateral and staged procedures with intervals of 1 day-6 weeks, 6 weeks-3 months, and 3 months-6 months. Yearly cumulative percent revision or cumulative percent survival with 95% confidence intervals calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method, and adjusted hazard ratios were used for comparisons. ResultsThirty-day mortality is lower in patients who have bilateral procedures within 6 months, regardless of timing, than those who have unilateral procedures (0.06% vs 0.18%). Staged bilateral THA had a significantly lower mortality than simultaneous bilateral THA (odds ratio 0.175, 95% confidence interval = 0.04-0.78, P = .022). When separate time intervals were compared, no significant differences were seen. Bilateral 6 week-3 months has a higher rate of revision from 1.5 years-2years compared with same day bilaterals (hazard ratio = 2.39, 95% confidence interval = 1.12, 5.09, P = .024). There were no other significant differences in the rate of revision between groups.The most common reasons for revision were fracture, loosening, and infection. Simultaneous bilateral procedures have a significantly higher rate of revision for fracture compared with staging 3-6 months (hazard ratio = 1.96 [1.27, 3.03], P = .002). ConclusionThis study demonstrates that bilateral THA has a low mortality rate regardless of time interval between procedures. Simultaneous and staged bilateral THA have similar rates of revision.

Short-term Revision Risk of Patellofemoral Arthroplasty Is High: An Analysis from Eight Large Arthroplasty Registries.

Patellofemoral arthroplasty (PFA) is one option for the treatment of isolated patellofemoral osteoarthritis, but there are limited data regarding the procedure and results. Because isolated patellofemoral arthritis is relatively uncommon, available case series generally are small, and even within national registries, sample sizes are limited. Combining data from multiple registries may aid in assessing worldwide PFA usage and survivorship. We combined and compared data from multiple large arthroplasty registries worldwide to ask: (1) What proportion of patients undergoing primary knee arthroplasty have PFA? (2) What are the patient and prosthesis characteristics associated with PFA in common practice, as reflected in registries? (3) What is the survivorship free from revision of PFA and what are the reasons for and types of revisions? Data were provided by eight registries that are members of the International Society of Arthroplasty Registries (ISAR) who agreed to share aggregate data: Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Sweden, Finland, Norway, the Netherlands, and the United States. De-identified data were obtained for PFA performed from either the beginning of year 2000, or the earliest recorded implantation date after that in each individual registry when PFA data collection commenced, up to December 31, 2016. This included patient demographics, implant use, all-cause revision rate (determined by cumulative percent revision [CPR]), and reasons for and type of revision. During the data collection period, 6784 PFAs were performed in the eight countries. PFAs comprised less than 1% of primary knee replacements in all registries. Patient demographics were comparable in all countries. Patients were generally more likely to be women than men, and the mean age ranged from 50 years to 60 years. All registries showed a high rate of revision for PFA. The 5-year CPR for any reason ranged from 8.0% (95% CI 4.5 to 11.5) in Norway to 18.1% (95% CI 15.5 to 20.7) in the Netherlands. The most common reason for revision across all countries was disease progression (42%, 434 of 1034). Most PFAs (83%, 810 of 980) were revised to a TKA. The revision risk of PFA in all registries surveyed was more than three times higher than the reported revision risk of TKA at the same times. The survivorship of PFA is similar to that of the no-longer-used procedure of metal-on-metal conventional hip replacement. Although there may be potential functional benefits from PFA, these findings of consistent and alarmingly high rates of revision should create concern, particularly as this procedure is often used in younger patients. Level III, therapeutic study.

Risk factors associated with reoperation in posterior cervical fusions: A large-scale retrospective analysis

ObjectivesTo identify risk factors for reoperation in patients who have undergone posterior cervical fusion (PCF). Patients and MethodsA retrospective cohort analysis was performed of patients undergoing PCF during a 12-year period at a single institution. Demographic and surgical characteristics were collected from electronic medical records. This study addressed reoperations, from all causes, of PCF. Different strategies, including the addition of anterior fusion, were also compared. ResultsOf the 370 patients meeting inclusion criteria there were 44 patients (11.9 %) that required a revision and of those 5 required a second revision. The most common reasons for revision were adjacent segment disease and infection, 13 (3.5 %) and 11 patients (3.0 %), respectively. There was not a higher revision rate (for any cause) for patients who had a subaxial fusion and compared with those that included C2 or those that failed to cross the cervicothoracic junction. Of patients who required reoperation, there was a statistically significant higher fraction of smokers (p = 0.023). ConclusionThe risks and benefits of posterior cervical instrumentation and fusion should be thoroughly discussed with patients. This report implicates smoking as a risk factor for all-cause reoperation in patients who have had this PCF and provides surgeons with additional data regarding this complication. When possible, preoperative optimization should include smoking cessation therapy.

Low risk of revision after reverse shoulder arthroplasty for acute proximal humeral fractures

BackgroundReverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) has gained popularity in the treatment of proximal humeral fractures (PHFs), especially in elderly patients. The purpose of this study was to investigate the use of RSA implants for acute PHFs and risk of revision, as well as risk factors for revision.MethodsRSA implants for acute PHFs were identified from the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association registry data from 2004 to 2016. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to calculate implant survival. Cox multiple regression analysis was used to calculate the adjusted revision rate for sex, age, country of operation, and year of surgery.ResultsThe study included 1523 RSA implants for PHFs (84% women; average age, 77 years; average follow-up time, 2.5 years). The 5-year cumulative implant survival rate was 97% (confidence limits, 95.5% and 98%). Revision was performed for 33 implants (2%). The most common reason for revision was instability, occurring in 11 cases (0.7%), followed by fracture, occurring in 6 (0.4%), and infection, occurring in 5 (0.3%). Four different arthroplasty brands were used in this cohort, with the Delta Xtend in two-thirds of cases (n = 1025). Age younger than 60 years and male sex were associated with slightly higher rates of revision; however, these differences did not reach statistical significance (hazard ratio of 2.02 with P = .075 and hazard ratio of 3.23 with P = .057, respectively).ConclusionThe use of RSA for acute PHFs is increasing in the Nordic countries. The short-term risk of revision is low. The main reason for revision of RSA for this indication is instability.

Survivorship of a Medialized Glenoid and Lateralized Onlay Humerus Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty Is High at Midterm Follow-up.

Reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) is a common treatment of a variety of disabling shoulder conditions. The purpose of this study was to determine revision-free survivorship after RSA using a medialized glenoid and lateralized onlay-type humerus implant and to identify etiologies of revision. All RSAs performed using the Comprehensive® Reverse Shoulder System (Zimmer Biomet, Inc.; Warsaw, IN, USA) at one institution from 2008 to 2014 were identified through a retrospective review. Charts were reviewed to determine whether the RSA was a primary or revision surgery. Patients were contacted by telephone, and survivorship was defined as no subsequent surgery after RSA. Of the 526 RSAs performed, responses were obtained from 403 patients (77%). A Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed to determine survivorship over time. A χ 2 test was used to determine differences between revision rates after RSA. Minimum follow-up was 3years, and average follow-up was 4.83 ± 1.60years. Survivorship was 96% at 2years and 93% at 5years after RSA. Revisions were performed for instability (n=8), humeral tray-taper junction failure (n=5), acute fracture (n= 4), infection (n=3), glenoid loosening (n=3), osteolysis (n=1), or notching (n=1). Fourteen of the 151 patients (9.2%) who had surgery prior to RSA required revision after RSA. Having shoulder surgery prior to RSA was associated with higher rates of subsequent revision after RSA. Overall, survivorship after RSA using a medialized glenoid and lateralized onlay-type humerus RSA is high, and prostheses implanted in native shoulders have lower rates of revision at midterm follow-up. Instability (1.9%) was the most common reason for revision.

Outcomes of Acetabular Reconstructions for the Management of Chronic Pelvic Discontinuity: A Systematic Review

BackgroundA number of articles have been published reporting on the clinical outcomes of various acetabular reconstructions for the management of chronic pelvic discontinuity (PD). However, no systematic review of the literature has been published to date comparing the outcome and complications of different approaches to reconstruction. MethodsThe US National Library of Medicine (PubMed/MEDLINE) and EMBASE were queried for publications from January 1980 to January 2019 using keywords pertinent to total hip arthroplasty, PD, acetabular dissociation, clinical or functional outcomes, and revision total hip arthroplasty or postoperative complications. ResultsOverall, 18 articles were included in this analysis (569 cases with chronic PD). The overall survival rate of the acetabular components used for the treatment of chronic PD was 84.7% (482 of 569 cases) at mid-term follow-up, whereas the most common reasons for revision were aseptic loosening (54 of 569 hips; 9.5%), dislocations (45 of 569 hips; 7.9%), periprosthetic joint infection (30 of 569 hips; 5.3%), and periprosthetic fractures (11 of 569 hips; 1.9%). Both pelvic distraction technique (combined with highly porous shells) and custom triflanges resulted in less than 5% failure rates (96.2% and 95.8%, respectively) at final follow-up. Also, highly effective in the treatment of PD were cup-cages and highly porous shells with and/or without augments with 92% survivorship free of revision for aseptic loosening for both reconstruction methods. Inferior outcomes were reported for conventional cementless shells combined with acetabular plates (72.7%) as well as ilioischial cages and reconstruction rings (66.7% and 60.6% survivorship, respectively). ConclusionThe current literature contains moderate quality evidence in support of the use of custom triflange implants and pelvic distraction techniques for the treatment of chronic PD, with a less than 5% all-cause revision rate and low complication rates at mean mid-term follow-up. Cup-cages and highly porous shells with or without augments could also be considered for the treatment of PD because both resulted in greater than 90% survival rates. Finally, there is still no consensus regarding the impact of different types of acetabular reconstruction methods on optimizing the healing potential of PD, and further studies are required in this area to better understand the influence of PD healing on construct survivorship and functional outcomes with each reconstruction method.

Manipulation under Anesthesia after Knee Arthroplasty Is Associated with Worse Long-Term Clinical Outcomes and Survivorship

The literature is mixed on the long-term fate of knees that undergo manipulation under anesthesia (MUA). The purpose of this study is to evaluate the long-term outcomes and survivorship of patients who required a MUA after primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) compared with a cohort of patients who did not undergo a MUA. Between 2003 and 2007, 2,193 patients (2,783 knees) underwent primary TKA with 2-year minimum follow-up; 182 knees (6.5%) had a MUA. Patients who had a manipulation were younger (p < 0.001) and had worse preoperative range of motion (ROM) (p < 0.001). Postoperative ROM, Knee Society clinical (KSC), functional, and pain (KSP) scores, revisions, and survivorship were compared between MUA and no MUA. Mean follow-up was 9.7 years. MUA patients had lower postoperative ROM (p < 0.001), change in ROM (p < 0.001), KSC (p < 0.001), KSP (p < 0.001), and change in KSP scores (0.013). Revisions occurred in 18 knees (9.9%) in the MUA group compared with 77 knees (3%) without a MUA (p < 0.001). Most common reason for revision after MUA was continued stiffness (50%). Relative risk for revision after one MUA was 2.01 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-3.8, p < 0.001) and after three or more MUAs were 27.02 (95% CI, 16.5-44.1, p < 0.001). Ten-year survival after MUA was 89.4% (95% CI, 87.1-91.7%) compared with 97.2% (95% CI, 96.9-97.5%) without a MUA (p < 0.001). Patients who undergo a MUA after primary TKA may have a knee at risk with higher revision rates, worse long-term clinical scores, ROM and survivorship.

Outcomes of total hip arthroplasty in haemodialysis and renal transplant patients: systematic review.

Chronic renal failure is increasing in prevalence and reported to have deleterious effects on the outcome of total hip arthroplasty (THA). To investigate the clinical and functional outcomes of THA in patients receiving haemodialysis or who have previously undergone renal transplantation. Systematic review of the literature using bibliographic databases up to July 2018 to determine the functional outcome, complications and revision rates of THA in patients receiving haemodialysis for end-stage renal failure and those with a previous renal transplant. 25 studies were identified with a total of 797 THAs. 166 patients (20.8%) were receiving haemodialysis and 631 patients (79.2%) had undergone transplantation. All studies reported a marked improvement in hip function following THA. There were 27 failures (15.7% revision rate) in the haemodialysis group and 101 failures (16.0% revision rate) in the transplant group. The revision rate for cemented implants was higher in haemodialysis versus transplant patients (23% vs. 15%), with the converse being true for uncemented implants (3.8% vs. 6.9%). The deep infection rate was higher in the haemodialysis group (10.8% vs. 2.1%). Patients receiving haemodialysis or with a history of renal transplantation can expect good functional outcome following THA. However, the revision rate and deep infection rate are higher than would be expected in patients receiving THA for primary OA. Aseptic loosening is the most common reason for revision. Uncemented implants appear to be associated with lower failure rates both in haemodialysis patients and those who have had a transplant.

Femoral neck prostheses: A systematic analysis of the literature.

Primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) is one of the most successful surgical procedures. Considering the demographic change the use of new ultra-short femoral implants has gained importance especially when treating young patients. Main features are bone conservation, metaphyseal anchoring and thus reducing stress shielding by proximal load transferring. The objective of this study is to give an overview over the subject of femoral neck prostheses. A systematic review was conducted. A total number of 27 publications were taken into this systematic review. Over all, just a few follow-up, biomechanical and radiostereometric studies have been conducted in the past. Still no long-term results (>10 years of follow-up) are available. The available mid-term results indicate unsatisfactory survival rates. Aseptic loosening was the most common reason for revision. Valgus angle and good bone mineral density were considered to be crucial for primary stability of femoral neck prostheses. Register data report a very low percentage of femoral neck prostheses in THA with even more diminishing implantation rates. To conclude, further studies are necessary in order to provide evidence-based recommendations. Currently, due to the inhomogeneous and poor data a reasonable and legitimate recommendation cannot be given.

Use and outcome of 1,220 primary total elbow arthroplasties from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Arthroplasty Replacement Registry 2008–2018

Background and purpose — The Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) was analyzed to determine trends in use of primary total elbow arthroplasty (TEA), the types of prostheses used, primary diagnoses, reasons for and types of revision, and whether the primary diagnosis or prosthesis design influenced the revision rate.Patients and methods — During 2008–2018, 1,220 primary TEA procedures were reported of which 140 TEAs were revised. Kaplan–Meier estimates of survivorship were used to describe the time to first revision and hazard ratios (HR) from Cox proportional hazard models, adjusted for age and sex, were used to compare revision rates.Results — The annual number of TEAs performed remained constant. The 3 most common diagnoses for primary TEA were fracture/dislocation (trauma) (36%), osteoarthritis (OA) (34%), and rheumatoid arthritis (RA) (26%). The cumulative percentage revision for all TEAs undertaken for any reason was 10%, 15%, and 19% at 3, 6, and 9 years. TEAs undertaken for OA had a higher revision rate compared with TEAs for trauma (HR = 1.8, 95% CI 1.1–3.0) and RA (HR = 2.0, CI 1.3–3.1). The Coonrad-Morrey (50%), Latitude (30%), Nexel (10%), and Discovery (9%) were the most used prosthesis designs. There was no difference in revision rates when these 4 designs were compared. The most common reasons for revision were infection (35%) and aseptic loosening (34%).Interpretation — The indications for primary and revision TEA in Australia are similar to those reported for other registries. Revision for trauma is lower than previously reported.

Revision Risk After Primary Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery: A Nationwide Study With Two-Year Follow-up

Study DesignCohort study. ObjectivesTo report the two-year revision risk following primary adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery, describe reasons for revisions, and assess risk factors for revision surgery. Summary of Background DataRevision risk following primary ASD surgery has been reported to vary between 7% and 26%, but with loss to follow-up as a considerable challenge. MethodsPatients ≥18 years of age undergoing primary instrumented surgery for ASD in Denmark during 2006–2014 were identified by procedure and diagnosis codes in the Danish National Patient Registry (DNPR). Complete two-year follow-up on revision surgery for each patient was achieved. Medical records were reviewed to determine reasons for revisions. Overall comorbidity was summarized using the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) based on DNPR data; low comorbidity (CCI 0); medium comorbidity (CCI 1–2); and high comorbidity (CCI ≥3). Risk factors for revision were assessed in a Cox regression model. ResultsA total of 553 patients were identified. Of these, 19.9% were revised within the two-year follow-up and 7.2% of patients were revised more than once. Median time to revision was 308 days (interquartile range 105–508). The most common reason for revision was implant failure (38.2%) followed by infection (11.8%). Increased age (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01–1.26, per 10 years increment) and high comorbidity burden (HR = 2.10, 95% CI 1.16–3.79) were associated with increased revision risk. Risk of revision increased from 2006 to 2014; hence, year of primary surgery (with 2006 as reference) was associated with increased revision risk (HR = 1.09, 95% CI 1.01–1.18). ConclusionsThe revision risk within 2 years after primary ASD surgery was 19.9% nationwide in Denmark, and implant failure was the most common reason for revision. Increased comorbidity and age were separately associated with increased risk of revision. Level of EvidenceLevel II.

Prior endoscopic third ventriculostomy does not increase ventriculoperitoneal shunt failure rate.

To determine whether prior endoscopic third ventriculostomy (ETV) influences the failure rate of subsequently placed ventriculoperitoneal (VP) shunts. Our institution's operative database and patient records were reviewed retrospectively to identify all paediatric patients who had undergone a first VP shunt or ETV at our institution between January 2012 and December 2015. Data was analysed using the Microsoft Excel, GraphPad Prism v7 and SPSS statistics. The literature on this topic to date was also reviewed. Eighty-six children were included in the study: 61 patients had a primary VP shunt inserted during the study period and 25 had a VP shunt inserted following failed ETV. There was no significant difference in the underlying aetiology or age of the patients in each group. In the primary VP shunt group, 47.5% (29 patients) required shunt removal at an average of 274days post-insertion (range 7days to 3.4years). The 1-year revision rate was 34.4%. In the shunt post-ETV group, 48% (12 patients) required shunt removal at an average of 207days post-insertion (range 2days to 2.7years). The 1-year revision rate was 36%. The most common reason for revision in both groups was blockage. We found no significant difference in failure rate or pattern between primarily inserted VP shunts and those inserted following an endoscopic third ventriculostomy. On the basis of this study and the small number of previously reported studies, we would advocate a trial of ETV where feasible to allow a chance at shunt independence.