Difference In Revision Rates Research Articles

The CR Versus PS Debate: A Throwback Throw-Down in Total Knee Arthroplasty: Commentary on an article by Young-Hoo Kim, MD, et al: "No Discernible Difference in Revision Rate or Survivorship Between Posterior Cruciate-Retaining and Posterior Cruciate-Substituting TKA".

The CR Versus PS Debate: A Throwback Throw-Down in Total Knee Arthroplasty: Commentary on an article by Young-Hoo Kim, MD, et al: "No Discernible Difference in Revision Rate or Survivorship Between Posterior Cruciate-Retaining and Posterior Cruciate-Substituting TKA".

Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonist Use is Associated With Increased Risk of Perioperative Complication and Readmission Following Shoulder Arthroplasty

Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, increasingly used for diabetes management and weight loss, have been linked to lower readmission rates after knee and hip arthroplasty. However, their impact on total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) outcomes remains unclear. This study investigates the effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists on major complications and revisions following TSA. A retrospective query of the TriNetX database from 2010 to 2023 was performed to identify patients who underwent anatomic or reverse TSA and were prescribed GLP-1 receptor agonists. GLP-1 receptor agonist users were 1:1 propensity score-matched to controls for demographic factors and comorbidities, yielding 1,259 patients in each group. Outcomes included 90-day postoperative medical complications and readmission and revision surgery at 2 years. Odds ratios (ORs), 95% confidence intervals, and P values were calculated. After Bonferroni correction, P < 0.005 was considered significant. GLP-1 receptor agonist users (n = 1,259) experienced significantly higher rates of deep vein thrombosis (1.6% vs. 0.9%; OR 3.0; P = 0.001), myocardial infarction (1.60% vs. 0.9%; OR 2.84; P = 0.003), pneumonia (3.34% vs 1.50%; OR 2.25; P = 0.003), transfusion (7.1% vs. 4.3%; OR 1.7; P = 0.003), and readmission (8.1% vs 5.2%; OR 1.6; P = 0.004) in the 90-day postoperative period compared to patients not taking GLP-1 receptor agonists. There were no differences in the rates of stroke, pulmonary embolism, postoperative anemia, or renal failure. In patients with a minimum 2-year follow-up (n = 776), there was no difference in revision rate (3.2% vs 1.8%; OR 1.8; P = 0.07). GLP-1 receptor agonist use during TSA was associated with an increased risk of deep vein thrombosis, myocardial infarction, pneumonia, need for transfusion, and readmission. Further investigation into the perioperative risk assessment and medical optimization of patients utilizing GLP-1 receptor agonists may be warranted.

Five- and ten-year follow-up of medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasties in obese and non-obese patients.

The aim of this study was to determine whether obesity had a detrimental effect on the long-term performance and survival of medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasties (UKAs). This study reviewed prospectively collected functional outcome scores and revision rates of all medial UKA patients with recorded BMI performed in Christchurch, New Zealand, from January 2011 to September 2021. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were the primary outcome of this study, with all-cause revision rate analyzed as a secondary outcome. PROMs were taken preoperatively, at six months, one year, five years, and ten years postoperatively. There were 873 patients who had functional scores recorded at five years and 164 patients had scores recorded at ten years. Further sub-group analysis was performed based on the patient's BMI. Revision data were available through the New Zealand Joint Registry for 2,323 UKAs performed during this time period. Obese patients (BMI > 30 kg/m2) were 3.1 years younger than non-obese patients (BMI < 30 kg/m2) at the time of surgery (mean age of obese patients 65.5 years (SD 9.7) and mean age of non-obese patients 68.6 years (SD 10.1)). Preoperatively, obese patients tended to have significantly lower functional scores than non-obese patients, which continued at five and ten years postoperatively. At these timepoints, obese patients had significantly lower scores for most PROMs measured compared to non-obese patients. However, there was no significant difference in the improvement of any of these scores after surgery between obese and non-obese patients. There was no significant difference in revision rates between obese and non-obese patients at any time. All-cause revision rate for obese patients was 0.73 per 100 observed component years compared to 0.67 in non-obese patients at ten years. There was also no significant difference in the aseptic loosening rate between groups. Our study supports the use of UKAs in obese patients, with similar benefit and survival compared to non-obese patients at ten years.

Fix or Replace? Comparable Outcomes with Internal Fixation and Distal Femoral Replacement for Periprosthetic Fractures above Total Knee Arthroplasty

IntroductionThe optimal treatment for periprosthetic fracture (PPfx) around total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remains a topic of debate. Due to its low incidence, comparative studies analyzing arthroplasty and fixation are lacking in the literature. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of distal femoral replacement (DFR) and open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) for distal femur PPfx. MethodsWe reviewed a consecutive series of 99 patients who underwent DFR (n = 54) or ORIF (n = 45) for distal femur PPfx. The indications for DFR were reviewed. Fractures were classified based on their relation to the implant using the Su classification. The primary outcome was re-revision, while secondary endpoints included inpatient complications, mortality within the first year, and mechanical complications such as loosening and non-union. ResultsType 2 fractures were the most prevalent type in both groups (DFR 37 versus ORIF 48.9%), while Type 1 fractures were more commonly treated with ORIF (35.6 versus 16.7%) and Type 3 with DFR (46.3 versus 15.6%) (P = 0.003). The preferred techniques in the ORIF group were plate osteosynthesis (66.7%) and retrograde nailing (31.1%). At a mean follow-up of 4.2 years (range, 1 to 14.1), DFR and ORIF did not demonstrate any difference in revision rates (13 versus 24.4%, P = 0.140) or mortality (3.7 versus 4.4%, P = 0.887). However, more mechanical complications were noted in the ORIF group (22.2 versus 7.4%, P = 0.035). ConclusionBoth distal femoral replacement and open reduction and internal fixation have comparable revision rates, complications, and clinical outcomes when used in supracondylar periprosthetic distal femur fractures. Longer-term studies are needed to assess DFR survivorship as well as outcomes of newer trauma techniques such as nail-plate combinations.

Cemented vs Cementless Stems for Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty for Proximal Humerus Fractures: A Registry Analysis with Patient-Reported Outcomes from a Level 1 Trauma Centre

BackgroundReverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) is being increasingly used in the treatment of comminuted or unreconstructible proximal humerus fractures. It is currently unclear if cementless rTSA have equivocal revision rates, mortality and functional outcomes compared to cemented or cementless rTSA. MethodsTwo data sources were used for this study. All rTSA performed for proximal humerus fractures between 1 January 2010 and 1 January 2020 recorded on the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) were used to determine revision rate and mortality between cemented and cementless rTSA. Patient-reported outcome measurements (PROM) including the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) and Single Assessment Numerical Value (SANE) were obtained via telephone from Royal Perth Hospital (RPH) patients between 01 January 2010 and 10 February 2021. ResultsThe study included 83 patients who underwent rTSA for proximal humerus fractures at Royal Perth Hospital. There were 4,335 rTSA procedures identified at other hospitals nationally. Of these, 54% of rTSA used cementless humeral stems. There was no significant difference in revision rate or mortality between cemented and cementless humeral stems adjusted for age and gender. For the RPH cohort, PROM scores included ASES score of 65.9 (CI: 60.6 - 71.2), OSS of 34.6 (CI: 31.9 - 37.2) and SANE value of 68.8 (CI: 61.8 - 75.8). ConclusionRevision rates and mortality are similar between cemented and cementless humeral stems used for rTSA for proximal humerus fractures. For appropriate patients, cementless humeral stems may be an acceptable first line treatment for proximal humerus fractures.

Structural Allograft versus Polyetheretherketone Cage in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Meta-Analysis

Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages and structural allografts (SAs) are commonly used in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion (ACDF), yet their postoperative results remain uncertain. This meta-analysis was conducted to determine whether there were any differences in outcomes between patients who received these two grafts in ACDF. We comprehensively searched electronic databases up to August 2023. Observational studies or randomized controlled trials reported postoperative outcomes, including fusion, subsidence, reoperation rates, and patient-reported outcomes through the Neck Disability Index (NDI), the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for neck and arm pain, and the Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA)/modified JOA score following primary ACDF using SA or PEEK cage. The results are presented in odds ratios (ORs) or mean differences with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Eleven studies were included, with 1213 patients (788 receiving SAs and 425 receiving PEEK cages). Patients having SA had significantly higher fusion (OR: 1.84, 95% CI: 1.27-2.67, p = 0.001) and lower subsidence (OR: 0.50, 95%CI: 0.30-0.86, p = 0.01) rates when compared with the PEEK cage. There was no difference in revision rate between SA or PEEK cage (p = 0.88). Two grafts demonstrated similar clinical improvements in NDI (p = 0.31), VAS for the neck (p = 0.77) and arm pain (p = 0.22), and JOA/mJOA score (p = 0.99). SA demonstrates better fusion and lower subsidence rates than the PEEK cage in ACDF. Nevertheless, these two cages resulted in equally successful postoperative clinical performances.

NO DIFFERENCE IN SHORT-TERM REVISION RATE AND EARLY MORTALITY IN UNCEMENTED VERSUS CEMENTED TOTAL HIP ARTHROPLASTY: A REGRESSION DISCONTINUITY ANALYSIS IN THE DUTCH ARTHROPLASTY REGISTER DATA

Controversy persists over whether cemented or uncemented fixation is more effective in reducing revision and mortality risks following primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). Despite a shift towards uncemented THA in Europe, Australia, and the US, no consensus exists on superior outcomes. This ambiguity in evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies necessitates advanced research methodologies to derive more definitive conclusions.This study investigates the causal impact of THA fixation type on 2-year and 5-year revision rates, along with 90-day mortality, utilizing a regression discontinuity (RD) design in scenarios where fixation choice is guided by patient age.Employing data from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register, we conducted a cohort study on primary THAs for osteoarthritis from 2007 to 2019. A “fuzzy” RD design was executed to compute the Local Average Treatment Effect for subjects around the age-based selection threshold for fixation type. The main outcome of interest was the revision rate at 2 years post-operation.Analysis for the 2-year revision endpoint, covering any cause, included 2,344 females and 1,671 males across 5 hospitals each, with no significant variation in revision rates observed. For the 5-year mark, 1,058 females in 3 hospitals and 214 males in 1 hospital were examined, similarly showing no significant differences. Mortality within 90 days post-operation was also investigated in 5 female and 7 male cohorts, with 2,180 and 2,145 surgeries respectively, yielding no substantial disparities.In conclusion, the RD analysis revealed no notable differences in revision rates at 2 and 5 years or in early mortality based on the fixation method used in THA. These outcomes suggest that the age-based preference for THA fixation may not influence the revision or mortality risk, underscoring the value of RD design in deriving causal insights from observational data.

Examining timing of periorbital interventions in patients with upper division facial paralysis.

Facial paralysis is a life-altering condition that may arise from various etiologies, ranging from trauma to malignancy. Permanent facial paralysis may occur secondary to facial nerve sacrifice or irreversible damage to the nerve. In these particularly devastating cases, protection and maintaining function of the eye is paramount. There are many effective lagophthalmos corrective surgical procedures available for these patients. While placement of eyelid weights and lid tightening surgeries are the cornerstone of eyelid rehabilitation, limited information exists on whether the timing of eyelid interventions in the setting of permanent facial paralysis impact outcomes, including need for revision surgery. A single-center retrospective chart review was performed for patients with irreversible facial paralysis treated with an upper eyelid weight between 2013 to 2022. Electronic health records were acquired to obtain facial paralysis etiology, associated clinical characteristics, the type of intervention, and the timing of intervention. Patients were classified as immediate if the eyelid weight operation occurred within 29 days of the initial facial paralysis and delayed if the surgery occurred 30 days or more after initial presentation. Outcomes were assessed in terms of revision procedures and surgical complications. There were 70 patients in total, with 35 patients in the immediate category and 35 patients in the delayed category. The most common etiology related to parotid gland pathology, and 58.6% of patients had facial paralysis from cancer-related surgeries. There were no significant differences in revision rates (p < 0.208) or in the types of procedures (p = 0.077) between the two groups. The complication rates also did not differ significantly between groups; however, there were only complications in the delayed intervention group. These findings suggest there is no difference in postoperative complications between groups, including the need for revision surgeries when comparing groups with immediate or delayed intervention. Thus, treatment plans should be customized based on patient and provider preferences.

What Are the Relative Associations of Surgeon Performance and Prosthesis Quality With THA Revision Rates?

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.

Complications and survival rates of subtrochanteric fractures are similar between short and long intramedullary nail fixation and independent of weight-bearing

PurposeIntertrochanteric fractures are treated surgically, allowing rapid weight-bearing to improve ambulation and lower complications and mortality. Subtrochanteric fractures are mechanically less stable and are traditionally treated with a non-weight approach and longer intramedullary nails. This study compared immediate weight-bearing versus limited weight-bearing and different intramedullary nail lengths regarding patient outcomes.MethodsWe analyzed all consecutive cases of low-energy subtrochanteric fractures treated surgically at our institution between January 2016 and November 2020. One hundred and nine patients were found. We compared nail length and immediate versus delayed weight-bearing concerning the length of stay, time to painless ambulation, time to radiographic fracture union, and revision rates. Fracture severity was also examined using the Seinsheimer classification.ResultsLength of stay and time to painless ambulation were shorter in the immediate weight-bearing group. Time to radiographic union and rate of complications were lower; however, they were not statistically significant. Conversely, no significant difference in revision rates was found. Regarding nail length, the length of stay was shorter, and the time to painless ambulation was faster in the short-length group. The rate of complications and time to union were similar. No difference in revision rate was found. Seinsheimer classification of the fracture did not influence the decision to allow weight-bearing or nail selection (p = 0.65).ConclusionsThis study demonstrates that immediate weight-bearing as tolerated and short intramedullary nails allow a quicker time for painless ambulation and hospitalization, with possibly fewer perioperative complications and faster radiographic union, without increasing complications.

TOTAL KNEE ARTHROPLASTY REVISION RATES IN MOBILE- VERSUS FIXED-BEARING IMPLANTS: A NEW ZEALAND JOINT REGISTRY STUDY

IntroductionThe mobile-bearing (MB) total knee arthroplasty (TKA) design was introduced with the aim of reducing polyethylene wear and component loosening seen in the fixed-bearing (FB) design. A recent joint registry study has revealed increased risk for all-cause revision, but not revision for infection, in MB-TKA. We used the New Zealand Joint Registry (NZJR) to compare all-cause revision rates, and revision rates for aseptic loosening of MB-TKA compared with fixed bearing (FB) TKA.MethodsAll patients who underwent a primary TKA registered in the NZJR between the 1st January 1999 to 31st December 2021 were identified. Analysis compared MB to FB designs, with sub analysis of implants from a single company. We identified 135,707 primary TKAs, with 104,074 (76.7%) FB-TKAs and 31,633 (23.3%) MB-TKAs recorded. We examined all-cause revision rates, reasons for revision and performed survival analyses.ResultsFor all-comers, MB-TKA had an all-cause revision rate of 0.43/100-component-years (OCY) compared with 0.42/OCY for FB-TKA (p=0.09). The all-cause revision rate was higher for those age &lt; 65 years (MB TKA 0.60/OCY vs. FB-TKA 0.59/OCY) compared to those &gt; 65 years at time of primary TKA (MB-TKA 0.29/OCY vs. FB-TKA 0.32/OCY), however there was no statistically significant difference between implant design in either age group (p=0.16 and p=0.64; respectively). Similarly, there was no difference in revision rates for aseptic loosening between implant designs. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis demonstrates no statistically significant difference in revision-free survival of implants, with both MB-TKA and FB-TKA demonstrating ∼93% revision free survival at 23 years.ConclusionsBoth FB- and MB-TKA demonstrated excellent survivorship, with no significant difference in all-cause revision rates or revision for aseptic loosening between implant designs.

No Difference in Revision Rates or Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Between Surgical Approaches for Total Hip Arthroplasty Performed for Femoral Neck Fracture: An Analysis of 5,025 Primary Total Hip Arthroplasties From the New Zealand Joint Registry

BackgroundTotal hip arthroplasty (THA) for femoral neck fracture (FNF) can be performed through different surgical approaches. This study compared the revision rates and patient-reported outcome measures by surgical approach. MethodsData from the New Zealand Joint Registry were analyzed for patients undergoing primary THA for FNF from January 2000 to December 2021. A total of 5,025 THAs were performed for FNF; the lateral approach was used in 2,499 (49.7%), the posterior in 2,255 (44.9%), and the anterior in 271 (4.3%). The primary outcome measure was the all-cause revision rate. Secondary outcome measures included revision rates for: dislocation, aseptic femoral component loosening, periprosthetic fracture, and infection. Oxford Hip Scores (OHS) were also collected. Age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, femoral head size, dual mobility use, femoral fixation, and surgeon experience were assessed as potential confounding variables. ResultsThere was no difference in the revision rates between lateral and posterior (P = .156), lateral and anterior (P = .680), or posterior and anterior (P = .714) approaches. There was no difference in the reasons for revision between the lateral and posterior approaches or 6-month OHS (P = .712). There was insufficient data to compare the anterior approach. ConclusionsThere is no difference in the overall revision rates, reasons for revision, or OHS between the lateral and posterior surgical approaches for THA performed for FNF. Insufficient data on the anterior approach is available for an accurate comparison. Level of EvidenceLevel III.

Comparison of revision rates and epidemiological data of a single total knee arthroplasty system of different designs (cruciate retaining, posterior stabilized, mobile bearing, and fixed bearing): a meta-analysis and systematic review of clinical trials and national arthroplasty registries

BackgroundThis study aimed to meta-analyze epidemiological data, revision rates, and incidences of different designs of a single Total Knee Arthroplasty System and compare these factors across different countries.MethodsA systematic review was conducted on clinical studies and arthroplasty registries of ATTUNE TKA from 1999 to 2020. The main endpoints analyzed were revision rates and epidemiological data.ResultsThe average age of patients was 67.8 years, with a gender distribution of 60% female and 40% male. The pooled average BMI was 29.4 kg/m2. Eight clinical studies showed a pooled revision rate per 100 observed CY of 0.5 (n = 1343 cases). Cumulative revision rates after 1, 3, and 5 years varied among registries, with the Swiss registry having the highest revision data (after 5 years: 6.3%) and the American registry having the lowest revision data (after 5 years: 1.7%). A comparison of the revision rates of mobile bearing and fixed bearing (41,200 cases) as well as cruciate retaining and posterior stabilized (n = 123,361 cases) showed no significant advantage in the first 5 years after implantation.ConclusionIn conclusion, pooled data from 41,200 cases of TKA with a single Total Knee Arthroplasty System in two arthroplasty registries revealed that there was no significant difference in revision rates between the mobile bearing and fixed bearing design within the first 5 years after implantation. In addition, a comparison of the revision rates in n = 123,361 cases showed no significant advantage for cruciate retaining or posterior stabilized in the first 5 years after implantation.

A comparison of cemented femoral fixation via anterior versus posterior approach total hip arthroplasty: an analysis of 60,739 total hip arthroplasties.

Anterior approach total hip arthroplasty (THA) decreases the rate of dislocation but increases femoral-sided complications in the way of periprosthetic fractures and component loosening. A cemented prosthesis may reduce femoral-sided complications and improve the risk:benefit profile of anterior approach THA. Data from the Australian National Joint Replacement Registry were analysed for patients undergoing primary THA via the anterior or posterior approach using a cemented polished femoral stem from January 2015 to December 2021. The primary outcome measure was the cumulative percent revision (CPR) for all causes and CPR for femoral component loosening and fracture. The CPR for the primary outcome measures were compared between the anterior and posterior approach and adjusted for age, sex, ASA score, BMI and femoral head size. The study included 60,739 THAs with cemented stems (10,742 anterior, 49,997 posterior). The rate of revision of the anterior versus the posterior approach did not significantly differ (HR 0.87 (95% CI, 0.74-1.03), p = 0.100). Anterior approach THA had a significantly higher rate of revision for femoral component loosening (HR 5.06 [95% CI, 3.08-8.30], p < 0.001); and a decreased rate of revision for infection (HR 0.59 [95% CI, 0.43-0.81], p = 0.001) and dislocation/instability (HR 0-3 months 0.48 [95% CI, 0.27-0.83], p = 0.008; HR >3 months 0.30 [95% CI, 0.15-0.61], p < 0.001). There was no difference in the rate of revision surgery for fracture between the 2 approaches (HR 1.01 [95% CI, 0.71-1.43]), p = 0.975). There is no significant difference in overall revision rates with cemented femoral fixation performed with an anterior or posterior approach. Cemented fixation performed with the anterior approach partly mitigates femoral complications with no difference in the revision rate for fracture but an increased rate of femoral component loosening.

No Difference in Revision Rates up to 10 years Following Total Hip Arthroplasty in Patients Who Had Prior Bariatric Surgery When Compared to Patients Who Had Class III Obesity: A Propensity Matched Analysis

BackgroundThere is no clear research showcasing bariatric surgery’s (BS’s) impact on long-term surgical complications following total hip arthroplasty (THA). Therefore, this study compared the 10-year cumulative incidence and risk of revision following THA in patients who underwent BS when compared to the general population and class III obesity patients who did not undergo BS. MethodsPatients who underwent elective THA from 2010 to 2021 were identified using an all-payer claims database. Patients who underwent BS prior to THA were separately matched to a control of the general population and those who had class III obesity (body mass index ≥40) by age, sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and diabetes using a 1:4 ratio. Kaplan-Meier analyses generated 10-year cumulative incidence rates, and a Cox proportional hazard ratio (HR) model generated HRs and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). ResultsWhen compared to the general control, patients who have a history of BS had an elevated 10-year risk of all-cause revision (HR 1.31, 95% CI: 1.16 to 1.47, P < .001), prosthetic joint infection (HR: 1.62, CI: 1.30 to 2.04; P < .001), mechanical loosening (HR: 1.20, CI: 1.01 to 1.44; P = .040), and dislocation/instability (HR: 1.35, CI: 1.09 to 1.68; P = .007). There was no difference in the 10-year risk of all-cause revision or other indications for revision in the BS cohort compared to the matched class III obesity cohort (P = .142). ConclusionsThose who underwent BS before THA had comparable 10-year revision rates when compared to those who had class III obesity and higher rates compared to the general population. This suggests BS may not reduce the 10-year surgical risks associated with obesity when compared to a class III obese surgical population.

Eyelid and Brow Rejuvenation: Technical Pearls and Outcomes of Upper Blepharoplasty with or without Ptosis Correction and Browlift.

Eyelid ptosis may present with upper lid dermatochalasis and brow ptosis. When indicated, ptosis correction (PC) is advocated during upper blepharoplasty (UB). Here, we aimed to report our outcomes following UB and PC. A retrospective review of patients that underwent UB from November 2018 to March 2020 was performed. Patient demographics, clinical characteristics, and revisions were recorded. Cox regression was performed to assess predictors of revision. Overall, 278 patients with 533 UB were included. Mean age was 67.3 years. Mean follow-up was 8.3 months. In 169 (31.7%) cases, a browlift was performed. UB and PC were performed in 109 (20.5%) cases, of which 60 (55%) involved Müller's muscle conjunctival resection, and 49 (45%) were levator repairs. New dry eye symptoms lasting ≥3 months occurred in 4 (0.8%) cases, all of which resolved. Revision rate was 3.8% after UB (residual skin [n=11], hypertrophic scar [n=4], Herring's law-related ptosis [n=1]); versus 9.2% after UB and PC (overcorrection [n=4], residual skin [n=4], asymmetry [n=2]). Multivariable analysis demonstrated increased revision rates after UB and PC (p-value=0.008). There was no difference in revision rates between different techniques of PC. In our study of 278 patients presenting for dermatochalasis, up to 21% of cases required ptosis correction in addition to upper blepharoplasty. Ptosis correction is a safe procedure when combined with upper blepharoplasty, regardless of technique used. The revision rate in our series was 9.2% after the combined procedure, which is greater than the revision rate of upper blepharoplasty only, however, comparable to the literature.

CORR Insights®: No Difference in Revision Rates and High Survival Rates in Large-head Metal-on-metal THA Versus Metal-on-polyethylene THA: Long-term Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial.

CORR Insights®: No Difference in Revision Rates and High Survival Rates in Large-head Metal-on-metal THA Versus Metal-on-polyethylene THA: Long-term Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial.

Collared versus collarless hydroxyapatite-coated stems for primary cementless total hip arthroplasty; a systematic review of comparative studies. Is there any difference in survival, functional, and radiographic outcomes?

This systematic review aims to critically assess the literature comparative studies investigating collared and collarless Corail stem in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) to find differences in revision rates, radiographic and clinical outcomes, and postoperative complications between these two types of the same stem. Eligible studies were found by searching PubMed, Science Direct/Scopus, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from conception till May 2023. The PRISMA guidelines were followed. The investigation encompassed randomized controlled trials, case series, comparative, cohort, and observational studies that assessed at least one comparative outcome or complication between collared and collarless Corail stems. Twelve comparative studies with 90,626 patients undergoing primary THA were included. There were 40,441 collared and 58,543 collarless stems. The follow-up ranged from 12 to 360 months. Our study demonstrated no significant difference in stem revision relative risk (RR=0.68; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.23, 2.02; p=0.49), number of radiolucent lines (RR=0.3; 95% CI, 0.06, 2.28; p=0.29) and overall complication risk (RR=0.62; 95% CI, 0.22, 1.76; p=0.37) between collared and collarless stems. The collared stems demonstrated significantly lesser subsidence (mean difference: 1.01mm; 95% CI, -1.77, -0.25; p=0.009) and risk of periprosthetic fractures (RR=0.52; 95% CI, 0.29, 0.92; p=0.03). The comparative studies between collared and collarless stem groups showed similar survival and overall complication rates and functional outcomes. The similar revision rates between groups make the impact of higher subsidence for collarless stems uncertain. The lower risk of periprosthetic fractures in the collared stems group must be clarified further but could be related to increased rotational stability.

No Difference in Revision Rates and High Survival Rates in Large-head Metal-on-metal THA Versus Metal-on-polyethylene THA: Long-term Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial.

Pseudotumor formation is a well-known complication in metal-on-metal (MoM) THA. Pseudotumors combined with elevated serum ion levels and complaints from patients can lead to high revision rates. Long-term (> 10 years) results obtained from randomized trials comparing large-head MoM THA and conventional metal-on-polyethylene (MoP) THA are lacking regarding revision and survival rates, pseudotumor formation, functional outcomes, and serum ion levels. At 10 years of follow-up, (1) what is the difference in survival and revision rates between large-head (38 to 60 mm) MoM THA and conventional 28-mm MoP THA? (2) What is the difference in pseudotumor formation between large-head MoM THA and MoP THA? (3) Is there a difference in functional outcome between large-head MoM THA and MoP THA? (4) What is the difference in serum ion levels between large-head MoM THA and MoP THA? Between January 2006 and December 2008, 104 patients were randomized to receive either cementless MoM THA (50 patients) or cementless MoP THA (54 patients). In all, 78% (81 of 104) of patients completed the 10-year postoperative follow-up: 36 patients with MoM THA (72%; six patients lost to follow-up) and 45 with MoP THA (83%; four lost to follow-up). In the MoM group, 47% (17) were men, and the patients had a mean ± SD age of 60 ± 5 years. In the MoP group, 38% (17) were men, and the patients had a mean age of 61 ± 5 years. All baseline characteristics were similar between the groups. At 10 years of follow-up, all patient records were screened for revision surgery or complications, and the primary endpoint was survivorship free from revision for any cause at the 10-year follow-up interval, which we analyzed using a Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. All patients had a CT scan to determine the pseudotumor classification, which was reviewed by an independent radiologist. Functional outcome was measured using the patient-reported Oxford Hip Score and Harris Hip Score; the latter was assessed by a blinded nurse practitioner. Finally, serum ion cobalt and chrome concentrations were measured at 10 years postoperatively. Because the a priori sample size calculation for this randomized controlled trial was based on a different endpoint, a post hoc power analysis was performed for this long-term follow-up study, with survival as the primary outcome. It showed that considering the number of included patients, this study would have sufficient power (one-sided testing, alpha 0.05, power 80%) to discern a difference of 20% in the survival rate between the MoP and MoM groups (95% versus 75%). With the numbers available, there was no difference in survivorship free from revision for any cause between the MoP group and MoM group at 10 years (95% [95% CI 85% to 98%] versus 92% [95% CI 82% to 98%]; p = 0.6). A higher percentage of patients in the MoM group had pseudotumors on CT than those in the MoP group did, but pseudotumors were observed in both groups (56% [20 of 36] in the MoM group versus 22% [10 of 45] in the MoP group, relative risk 1.8 [95% CI 1.2 to 2.6]; p = 0.002). A higher proportion of elevated cobalt and chrome levels was found in the MoM group (19% and 14%, respectively) than in the MoP group (0% for both cobalt and chrome) (cobalt: RR 1.2 [95% CI 1.1 to 1.5]; p = 0.002; chrome: RR 1.2 [95% CI 1.0 to 1.3]; p = 0.01). In 25% of the patients with pseudotumors (5 of 20 patients), there were elevated serum cobalt levels. None of the 23 patients without pseudotumors had elevated cobalt levels (RR 1.3 [95% CI 1.0 to 1.7]; p = 0.01). There was no difference in functional outcome between study groups, nor a difference between patients with a pseudotumor and those without. This study showed that the survival of patients with large-head MoM THA was high and comparable to that of those with MoP THA, which contrasts with the high revision rates reported by others. Although some patients with MoP THAs experienced pseudotumors, the risk of a pseudotumor was much greater in MoM hips, and serum ion levels were higher in patients who received an MoM THA. For these reasons and unknown future complications, continued surveillance of patients with MoM THAs seems important. Level I, therapeutic study.

Primary reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for fractures requires more revisions than for degenerative conditions 1 year after surgery: an analysis from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register.

Although reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) is considered a viable treatment strategy for proximal humeral fractures, there is an ongoing discussion of how its revision rate compares with indications performed in the elective setting. First, this study evaluated whether RTSA for fractures conveyed a higher revision rate than RTSA for degenerative conditions (osteoarthritis, rotator cuff arthropathy, rotator cuff tear, or rheumatoid arthritis). Second, this study assessed whether there was a difference in patient-reported outcomes between these 2 groups following primary replacement. Finally, the results of conventional stem designs were compared with those of fracture-specific designs within the fracture group. This was a retrospective comparative cohort study with registry data from the Netherlands, generated prospectively between 2014 and 2020. Patients (aged ≥ 18 years) were included if they underwent primary RTSA for a fracture (<4 weeks after trauma), osteoarthritis, rotator cuff arthropathy, rotator cuff tear, or rheumatoid arthritis, with follow-up until first revision, death, or the end of the study period. The primary outcome was the revision rate. The secondary outcomes were the Oxford Shoulder Score, EuroQol 5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) score, numerical rating scale score (pain at rest and during activity), recommendation score, and scores assessing change in daily functioning and change in pain. This study included 8753 patients in the degenerative condition group (mean age, 74.3±7.2 years) and 2104 patients in the fracture group (mean age, 74.3±7.8 years). RTSA performed for fractures showed an early steep decline in survivorship: Adjusted for time, age, sex, and arthroplasty brand, the revision risk after 1 year was significantly higher in these patients than in those with degenerative conditions (hazard ratio [HR], 2.50; 95% confidence interval, 1.66-3.77). Over time, the HR steadily decreased, with an HR of 0.98 at year 6. Apart from the recommendation score (which was slightly better within the fracture group), there were no clinically relevant differences in the patient-reported outcome measures after 12 months. Patients who received conventional stems (n=1137) did not have a higher likelihood of undergoing a revision procedure than those who received fracture-specific stems (n=675) (HR, 1.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.91-3.17). Patients undergoing primary RTSA for fractures have a substantially higher likelihood of undergoing revision within the first year following the procedure than patients with degenerative conditions preoperatively. Although RTSA is regarded as a reliable and safe treatment option for fractures, surgeons should inform patients accordingly and incorporate this information in decision making when opting for head replacement surgery. There were no differences in patient-reported outcomes between the 2 groups and no differences in revision rates between conventional and fracture-specific stem designs.