Primary Total Hip Replacement Research Articles

ESTIMATING THE COSTS, HEALTH-RELATED QUALITY OF LIFE, AND REVISION RISK IN THE YEAR AFTER ELECTIVE PRIMARY AND REVISION HIP ARTHROPLASTY PROCEDURES BY IMPLANT BEARING MATERIALS: AN ANALYSIS OF LINKED DATA FROM THE NATIONAL JOINT REGISTRY (NJR), HOSPITAL EPISODE STATISTICS (HES), AND PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOME MEASURES (PROMS) FOR ENGLISH PATIENTS

Implants in total hip replacement (THR) are associated with different clinical and cost-effectiveness profiles,. We estimate the costs and outcomes for NHS patients in the year after THR associated with implant bearing materials using linked routinely collected data.We linked NJR primary elective THR patients for osteoarthritis to HES and National PROMs. We estimated health care costs, health-related quality of life indices, and revision risks, in the year after primary and revision THRs overall. We used generalised linear models adjusting for patient and hospital characteristics and estimated 10-year cumulative probability of revision. We imputed utilities using chained equations for half the sample with missing PROMS.We linked 577,973 elective primary THRs and 11,812 subsequent revisions. One year after primary THR, patients with the cemented THRs using cobalt chrome or stainless steel head with HCLPE liner/cup cost the NHS, on average, £13,101 (95%CI £13,080,£13,122), had an average quality-of-life score of 0.788 (95%CI 0.787,0.788), and a 10-year revision probability of 1.9% (95%CI 1.6,2.3). Compared to the reference, patients receiving a cemented THR with delta ceramic head and HCLPE liner/cup, hybrid THR with delta ceramic head and HCLPE liner/cup, and hybrid THR with alumina head and HCLPE liner/cup had lower 1-year costs (-£572 \[95% CI -£775,-£385\], -£346 \[-£501,-£192\], -£371 \[-£574,-£168\] respectively), better quality of life (0.007 \[95% CI 0.003,0.011\], 0.013 \[0.010,0.016\], 0.009 \[0.005,0.013\] respectively), and lower 10-year revision probabilities (1.4% \[1.03,2.0\], 1.5 \[1.3,1.7\], 1.6%\[1.2,2.1\] respectively).Implant bearing materials are associated with varying mean costs and health outcomes after primary THR. Ours is the first study to derive costs and health outcomes from large, linked databases using multiple imputation methods to deal with bias. Our findings are useful for commissioning and procurement decisions and to inform a subsequent cost-effectiveness model with more granular detail on THR implant types.

HOW MUCH DO HIP ARTHROPLASTIES COST? THE BURDEN AND BUDGET IMPACT OF IMPLANTS AND HIP ARTHROPLASTY ON THE NATIONAL HEALTH SYSTEM FOR ENGLAND AND WALES

Total hip replacement (THR) is one of the most common and cost-effective elective surgical procedures. In the National Health Service (NHS) of England and Wales a myriad of implants for THR are offered at a variety of locally negotiated prices. This study aims to estimate the total burden of elective THR to the NHS, expenditure on implants, and different scenarios of cost changes if implant selection changed for different patient groups.Using National Joint Registry (NJR) data and NHS reference costs, we estimated the number and expenditure of NHS funded primary and revision THR in the 10-year period 2008–2017 and forecasted the number and expenditure on THR over the next decade. Using NJR average NHS Trust prices for the different implant combinations we estimated the average cost of implants used in THRs and estimated the budget impact on NHS providers from switching to alternative implants.The NHS spent over £4.76 billion performing 702,381 THRs between 2008–2017. The average cost of implants was £1,260 per surgery, almost a fifth of the cost of primary THR. Providing cemented implant combinations in primary elective THRs may potentially save up to £281 million over the next 10 years, whilst keeping 10-year revision risks low.The NHS is likely to spend over £5.6 billion providing primary elective THR over the next decade. There are efficiency savings to realise in the NHS by switching to more cost-effective implant combinations available for patients undergoing primary elective THR surgery, but these will need to be balanced against the risks inherent to a change in selection of implants and surgical practice. The HIPPY programme will be conducting practice surveys, discrete choice experiments and a large randomised controlled trial of cemented, uncemented and hybrid fixation in THR for patients under 70 to answer uncertainties.

BEARING SURFACE MATERIALS AND THE RISK OF REVISION FOLLOWING PRIMARY TOTAL HIP ARTHROPLASTY: A COHORT ANALYSIS OF 1,026,481 HIP ARTHROPLASTIES FROM THE NATIONAL JOINT REGISTRY

Hip bearing surfaces materials are typically broadly reported in national registry (metal-on-polyethylene, ceramic-on-ceramic etc). We investigated the revision rates of primary total hip replacement (THR) reported in the National Joint Registry (NJR) by detailed types of bearing surfaces used.We analysed THR procedures across all orthopaedic units in England and Wales. Our analyses estimated all-cause and cause-specific revision rates. We identified primary THRs with heads and monobloc cups or modular acetabular component THRs with detailed head and shell/liner bearing material combinations. We used flexible parametric survival models to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (HR).A total of 1,026,481 primary THRs performed between 2003–2019 were included in the primary analysis (Monobloc cups: n=378,979 and Modular cups: n=647,502) with 20,869 (2%) of these primary THRs subsequently undergoing a revision episode (Monobloc: n=7,381 and Modular: n=13,488).Compared to implants with a cobalt chrome head and highly crosslinked polyethylene (HCLPE) cup, the overall risk of revision for monobloc acetabular implant was higher for patients with cobalt chrome or stainless steel head and non-HCLPE cup. The risk of revision was lower for patients with a delta ceramic head and HCLPE cup implant, at any post-operative period.Compared to patients with a cobalt chrome head and HCLPE liner primary THR, the overall risk of revision for modular acetabular implant varied non-constantly. THRs with a delta ceramic or oxidised zirconium head and HCLPE liner had a lower risk of revision throughout the entire post-operative period.The overall and indication-specific risk of prosthesis revision, at different time points following the initial implantation, is reduced for implants with a delta ceramic or oxidised zirconium head and a HCLPE liner/cup in reference to THRs with a cobalt chrome head and HCLPE liner/cup.

WHO DAIRS WINS?

Periprosthetic joint infection is a serious complication of primary total hip replacement (THR) with significant associated morbidity. In acute infection, Debridement, Antibiotics and Implant Retention (DAIR) may be considered. Current national guidelines recommend a DAIR should be performed by “an experienced arthroplasty surgeon┕ but do not specify the need for this to be a revision arthroplasty surgeon. We investigated outcomes in our NHS Trust of DAIR procedures performed by revision and non-revision arthroplasty surgeons.Infection registry data and patient records were analysed for all DAIR procedures of infected primary THRs between 2017 and 2021. Data collected included details of the primary surgery, the presentation with infection, the DAIR procedure and any subsequent complications including return to theatre at any time point. Routinely collected pre- and post-operative patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) were reviewed.54 periprosthetic joint infections of primary THRs received a DAIR procedure. 41 DAIRs were performed by a revision surgeon and 13 by non-revision surgeons. There was no significant difference in time from primary THR to presentation with infection, time from presentation to DAIR or pre-operative C-reactive protein between the two groups.In 21 (38.9%) patients the DAIR procedure was classed as a treatment failure; 17 patients (31.5%) returned to theatre for further revision surgery, one (2.4%) died related to infection and three (5.6%) had persistent infection but did not receive further surgery. Treatment failure was significantly higher in the non-revision surgeon group (9/13 (69.2%)) than in the revision surgeon group (12/41 (29.3%)) (p = 0.02). Overall, improvement in PROMs after DAIR was seen at both six and 12 months.The overall success rate of DAIR was 61.1% and there was a sustained improvement in PROMs after surgery. However, there was a significant difference in failure rates between revision surgeons and non-revision surgeons.

Preoperative MRSA screening using a simple questionnaire prior elective total joint replacement.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the management and results of our standarized protocol for preoperative identification of MRSA colonisation in patients undergoing primary total hip and knee replacement procedures. Following hospital protocol, between January 2016 and June 2019 37,745 patients awaiting elective joint replacement underwent a standardized questionnaire to assess the risk of MRSA infection, identifying patients requiring preoperative MRSA screening. An evaluation of the questionnaire identified effective questions for identifying infected patients. Furthermore, an analysis evaluated the impact of comorbidities or Charlson Comorbidity Index scores on positive MRSA colonization. Additionally, we evaluated the cost savings of targeted testing compared to testing all surgery patients. Of the 37,745 patients, 8.057 (21.3%) were swabbed, with a total of 65 (0.81%) positive tests. From this group 27 (36.48%) who were treated were negative before surgery. Some of the questionnaire results were consistently associated with a higher chance of colonization, including hospitalization during the past year (47,7%), previous history of MRSA (44,6%), and agriculture or cattle farming related work (15,4%). By selectively testing high-risk patients identified through the questionnaire, we achieved a 79% reduction in costs compared to universal MRSA screening. Our results suggest that the simple and standardized questionnaire is a valuable tool for preoperative screening, effectively identifying high-risk patients prone to MRSA colonisation. The risk of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) and its associated sequelae may be reduced by this approach.

Elastic Compression Dressing after Total Hip Replacement Slightly Reduces Leg Swelling: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Background: Even minor adverse reactions after total hip replacement (THR), including lymphedema, postoperative leg swelling, and blood loss, compromise patient comfort in times of minimally invasive fast-track surgery. Compression dressings are commonly used in surgical practice to reduce swelling or blood loss. However, the use of spica hip compression dressings after primary THR is controversial, and prospective studies are lacking. Methods: We conducted a prospective, single-center, two-arm, randomized controlled trial (RCT) of patients undergoing THR for primary osteoarthritis. A total of 324 patients were enrolled; 18 patients were excluded, and 306 patients were finally analyzed. Leg swelling as primary endpoint was measured pre- and postoperatively with a rotating 3D infrared body scanner. Secondary endpoints were transfusion rate and blood loss, estimated by Nadler and Gross formulas. Results: Postoperative leg swelling was lower in the compression group (241 ± 234 mL vs. 307 ± 287 mL; p = 0.01), even after adjustment for surgery time and Body-Mass-Index (BMI) (p = 0.04). Estimated blood loss was also lower in the compression group on the first (428 ± 188 mL vs. 462 ± 178 mL; p = 0.05) and third (556 ± 247 mL vs. 607 ± 251 mL; p = 0.04) postoperative days and leveled off on the fifth postoperative day, but lost significance after adjustment for BMI and surgery time. Neither group received a transfusion. Conclusions: Compression dressing after THR in the context of minimally invasive surgery slightly reduces leg swelling, but has no effect on blood loss or blood transfusion rate. So, this method could not generally be recommended in primary hip replacement.

The functional and psychological impact of delayed hip and knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 89,996 patients

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the impact of presurgical waiting times on pre-/post-operative joint specific pain and function, health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and perspectives of patients awaiting primary elective total hip (THR) and knee (TKR) replacements. MEDLINE, EMBASE, PUBMED, and CENTRAL databases were searched from inception until 30th January 2023 (CRD42022288128). Secondary literature and unpublished datasets containing paediatric, non-elective, partial, or revision replacement populations were excluded. PRISMA 2020 reporting and GRADE certainty of evidence guidelines were followed. Residual maximum likelihood meta-analysis and linear meta-regression was performed to elucidate the influence of presurgical waiting time. Twenty-six studies were eligible for systematic review and sixteen for meta-analysis, capturing 89,996 patients (60.6% female, mean age 67.4 years) between 2001 and 2022. A significant deterioration in joint function (mean difference (MD):0.0575%; 95% CI 0.0064, 0.1086; p = 0.028(4d.p.); I2 = 73.1%) and HRQOL (MD: 0.05%; 95% CI − 0.0001.0009; p = 0.011(4 d.p.); I2 = 80.6%) was identified per additional day of waiting. Despite qualitative evidence, meta-analysis could not observe a relationship with postoperative outcome data. Patient responses to delayed THR and TKR surgery were unanimously negative. Immediate action should seek to reduce the increased patient anxiety and significant reductions in pre-operative joint functionality and HRQOL associated with prolonged pre-surgical waiting time, whilst mitigating any potential deleterious post-operative effects.

Analysis on association between sagittal stem alignment and early functional and radiological outcome following primary cementless total hip replacement.

Accurate reconstruction of hip anatomy and biomechanics is mandatory for achieving good clinical outcomes following total hip replacement (THR). Optimal stem alignment is essential to avoid impingement or loosening. This study aimed to evaluate sagittal stem position following cementless THR and its relationship with patient's functional outcome and post-operative radiological parameters. We performed analytical observational study with cross-sectional design on 71 hips (67 patients, ranged 18-85years old) that underwent primary cementless THR in two orthopedic centers in Jakarta, Indonesia. All hips were operated through either anterolateral or posterior approach using either extended/full-coating wedge-tapered stem or proximal-coated wedge-tapered stem. Clinical outcomes were evaluated at follow-up time using mHHS questionnaire, VAS level of thigh pain, and hip ROM. Stem sagittal alignment and other radiological parameters, including combined anteversion and offset, were measured from conventional radiograph. There were no significant differences on mHHS score, VAS level on thigh pain, and ROM between stem alignment groups. Post-operative anteversion and offset of the implant were not affected by the stem sagittal position. All influencing factors have significant effect on sagittal stem alignment. Linear regression test on femur morphology showed 0.69° increase in stem posterior tilt for every 1° increase in the anterior bowing (coeff. = 0.502). Stem tilting in sagittal plane did not affect patient's functional outcome or post-operative radiological parameters. In addition, for every degree of increased anterior femoral bowing, 0.69° increase in posterior stem tilting can be expected.

Management of acetabular bone loss in revision total hip replacement: a narrative literature review.

Due to growing numbers of primary total hip replacement (THR), the revision THR burden is also increasing. Common indications for revision are osteolysis, infection, instability, and mechanical failure of implants, which can cause acetabular bone loss. Massive acetabular bone defects and pelvic discontinuity are extremely challenging problems. Many techniques have been utilized to address bone loss while maintaining a stable revision THR. Structural allografts, cemented prosthesis, reconstruction cages, and custom triflanged implants have all been used successfully albeit with relatively high complications rates. We have tried to highlight emerging trends to utilize Custom Made Monoflange or Triflange Acetabular Components to reconstruct massive acetabular defects with favourable midterm implant survival, better functional outcomes, relatively lesser complications, and almost similar cost of prosthesis as compared to conventional reconstruction techniques. However, long-term data and study is still recommended to draw a definitive conclusion. In this narrative review article, we searched PubMed and Cochrane for studies on managing acetabular bone loss in revision THR with a focus on recent literature for mid to long-term outcomes and compared results from various studies on different reconstruction methods. Hemispherical cementless acetabular prosthesis with supplemental screws are commonly utilized to manage mild to moderate acetabular bone loss. Recent trends have shown much interest and paradigm shift in patient specific custom triflange acetabular components (CTAC) for reconstructing massive acetabular defects and pelvic discontinuity. Studies have reported high patient satisfaction, improved patient reported daily functioning, high mid-term implant survival, similar complications, and encouraging all cause re-revision rate. However, more prospective and quality studies with larger sample sizes are needed to validate the superiority of CTACs over conventional acetabular implants. There is no consensus regarding the best option for reconstructing massive acetabular defects. Thorough preoperative workup and planning is an absolute requirement for successful revision THR. While most of the moderate acetabular bone loss can be managed with cementless hemispherical acetabular shells with excellent long-term outcomes, reconstructing massive acetabular bone defects in revision THR remains a challenge. Depending on the size and location of the defect, various constucts have demonstrated long-term success as discussed in this review, but complications are not negligible. CTACs provide a treatment for massive bone loss that may be otherwise difficult to achieve anatomic stability with other constructs. Although long-term data is sparse, the cost and complication rate is comparable to other reconstruction methods.

Hip-specific and generic patient-reported outcome measure scores after primary hip replacement are associated with early revision surgery: a national registry study

BackgroundThe ability to efficiently identify patients at higher risk of poor outcomes after joint replacement would enable limited resources for post-operative follow-up to be directed to those with the greatest clinical need. This is particularly important as joint replacement rates continue to grow internationally, stretching health system capabilities. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are routinely administered in many settings and offer an opportunity to detect suboptimal patient outcomes early. This study aimed to determine whether hip-specific and generic PROM scores are associated with early revision hip replacement within six to 24 months after the primary procedure.MethodsPre-operative and six-month post-operative PROM scores for patients undergoing primary total hip replacement (THR) were obtained from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry and Arthroplasty Clinical Outcomes Registry National and linked to revision surgery data. Clinically important improvement was defined using anchor-based thresholds. Associations between PROM scores (hip pain, Oxford Hip Score, HOOS-12, EQ-5D-5L, EQ VAS, patient-perceived change, satisfaction) and revision surgery were evaluated using t-tests, chi-square tests and regression models.ResultsData were analysed for 21,236 primary THR procedures between 2013 and 2022. Eighty-eight revision procedures were performed at six to 24 months. Patients who were revised had more back pain and worse HOOS-12 scores pre-operatively but between-group differences were small. Worse post-operative PROM scores (hip pain, Oxford, HOOS-12, EQ-5D-5L, EQ VAS) were associated with early revision, after adjusting for age and sex (p < 0.001 for all analyses). Patient dissatisfaction (relative risk (RR) 10.18, 95%CI 6.01–17.25) and patient-perceived worsening (RR 19.62, 95%CI 11.33–33.98) were also associated with a higher likelihood of revision. Patients who did not achieve clinically important improvement in hip pain, function, or quality of life had a higher revision risk (RRs 2.54–5.64), compared with those who did (reference).ConclusionSix-month hip-specific and generic PROM scores can identify patients at higher risk of early revision surgery. Our data highlight the utility of routine post-operative PROM assessment for signaling suboptimal surgical outcomes.

Severe osteolysis in a patient with Legg-Calvé-Perthes disease 32 years after primary total hip replacement: A case report

This article presents a case report of a 73-year-old woman with Legg-Calvé-Perthes disease (LCPD) which developed late-onset osteolysis after a primary total hip replacement (THR). LCPD is a complex childhood hip disorder that can cause bone necrosis, deformation, and premature osteoarthritis with an increased risk of osteolysis after primary THR and therefore a higher risk of revision surgery. The acetabular component was unstable, with pronounced polyethene wear, and mechanical deformation and loosening of the acetabular component. The case was managed with the revision of THR using a non-cemented acetabular and femoral component, polyethene insert and ceramic head, which resulted in a smooth postoperative period. The article also discusses the incidence of LCPD and its association with osteolysis, highlighting the importance of considering medical history to manage complications after primary THR.

The impact of primary total hip and knee replacement on frailty: an observational prospective analysis

BackgroundOsteoarthritis is a prevalent condition in frail older adults that requires hip or knee replacement in many patients. The aim of the study was to determine the impact of hip and knee arthroplasty on frailty.MethodsIn this prospective short-term study, we used data from 101 participants of the ongoing Special Orthopaedic Geriatrics (SOG) trial, funded by the German Federal Joint Committee (GBA). Frailty, measured by Fried’s Physical Frailty Phenotype (PFP), was assessed preoperatively, 7 days postoperatively, 4–6 weeks and 3 months after hip and knee arthroplasty. ANOVA with repeated measures and post-hoc tests for the subgroups were used for the statistical analysis.ResultsOf the 101 participants, 50 were pre-frail (1–2 PFP criteria) and 51 were frail (≥ 3 PFP criteria) preoperatively. In the pre-frail group, the PFP score decreased from 1.56 ± 0.50 (median 2) preoperatively to 0.53 ± 0.73 (median 0) 3 months after surgery (p < 0.001). The PFP score in the frail cohort decreased from 3.39 ± 1.45 (median 3) preoperatively to 1.27 ± 1.14 (median 1) 3 months postoperatively (p < 0.001). While the PFP score of the pre-frail participants increased 7 days after surgery, the PFP score of the frail group decreased significantly.ConclusionPre-frail individuals often regain robustness and patients with frailty are no longer assessed as frail after surgery. Joint replacement is an effective intervention to improve frailty in hip and knee osteoarthritis.Trial registrationThis study is part of the Special Orthopaedic Geriatrics (SOG) trial, German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00024102. Registered on 19 January 2021.

Clinical reasoning for the continuation or discontinuation of hip precautions after total hip arthroplasty in Switzerland: a qualitative study.

Growing evidence raises doubts about the need for routine hip precautions after primary total hip replacements to reduce the risk of postoperative dislocation. However, hip precautions are still routinely and widely prescribed in postoperative care in Switzerland. We aimed to investigate experts' clinical reasoning for hip precaution recommendations after total hip arthroplasty. Using a convenience sampling strategy, 14 semi-structured expert interviews were conducted with surgeons, physiotherapists, and occupational therapists in the vicinity of an inpatient rehabilitation clinic in Switzerland. Data analysis followed Mayring's principle of inductive and deductive structuring content analysis. Expert statements from the interviews were summarised into four main categories and 10 subcategories. Categories included statements on the incidences of dislocation and underlying risk factors; current preferences and use of hip precautions; their effect on physical function, anxiety, or costs; and patient's adherence to the movement restrictions. Hip surgeons routinely prescribed hip precautions, although in different variations. Fear of dislocation and caution are barriers to changing current practice. Some surgeons are considering individualised prescribing based on patients' risk of dislocation, which therapists would welcome. A lack of clear instructions from the surgeon leads to ambiguity among therapists outside the acute hospital. A shared understanding of the need for and nature of hip precautions, guidelines from societies, or at least specific instructions from surgeons to therapists are warranted.

Adapting hip arthroplasty practices during the COVID-19 pandemic: Assessing the impact of outpatient care sudden increase on early complications and clinical outcomes.

The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly affected access to timely care for patients with hip osteoarthritis requiring total hip replacement (THR). This study aimed to assess the changes in surgical activity, outpatient treatment, length of stay (LOS), discharge destinations, readmission rates, clinical outcomes, and patient satisfaction before and after the pandemic at our institution. This retrospective study encompassed patients undergoing primary THR through the direct anterior approach at a single university hospital. Data on demographic characteristics, surgical technique, perioperative management, LOS, discharge destinations, complications, and clinical outcomes were collected. Furthermore, a comparative analysis between the pre-pandemic (2019) and post-pandemic (2022) periods was conducted. There was a 14% increase in surgical activity post-pandemic, with 214 patients undergoing surgery in 2019 versus 284 in 2022. The percentage of patients managed as outpatients significantly increased from 0.5% in 2019 to 29.6% in 2022 (p<0.001). LOS decreased from 2.7±1 [0-8] days to 1.4±1.1 [0-12] days (p<0.001), and the rate of discharge to rehabilitation centres declined from 21.5% to 8.8% (p<0.001). No significant increase in the readmission rates was observed (1.4% in both periods). At two months postoperatively, the mean HHS and satisfaction rates were comparable between the two groups (p=1 and p=0.73, respectively). Despite the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, surgical activity at our institution demonstrated an increase compared to the pre-pandemic levels by expanding outpatient care, reducing LOS, and increasing rates of home discharges. Importantly, these changes did not adversely affect rehospitalization rates or early clinical outcomes. IV.

Migration patterns of acetabular cups: a systematic review and meta-analysis of RSA studies.

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of RSA studies to investigate the early and long-term migration patterns of acetabular cups and the influence of implant factors on cup migration over time. We performed a systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases to identify all RSA studies of cup migration following primary total hip replacement (THR). Proximal migration at 3 and 6 months, 1, 2, 5, and 10 years were considered for analysis. Implant factors investigated included fixation type, head size, bearing surface, uncemented coating design, and the decade of RSA introduction. 47 studies reported the proximal migration of 83 cohorts (2,328 cups). Besides 1 threaded cup design, no implant factor investigated was found to significantly influence proximal migration. The mean pooled 2-year proximal migration of cemented cups (0.14 mm, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.08-0.20) was not significantly different from uncemented cups (0.12 mm, CI 0.04-0.19). The mean pooled proximal migration at 6 months was 0.11 mm (CI 0.06-0.16) and there was no significant increase between 6 months and 2 years (0.015 mm, CI 0.000-0.030). 27 of 75 cohorts (36%) reported mean proximal migration greater than 0.2 mm at 2 years, which has previously been identified as a predictor of implants at risk of long-term loosening. Our meta-analysis demonstrated that the majority of cup migration occurs within the first 6 months. With one exception, no implant factors influenced the 2-year proximal migration of acetabular cups. 36% of studies with 2-year migration were considered at risk of long-term loosening. Further investigation and comparison against long-term survivorship data would validate 6-month and/or 1-year proximal migration measurements as an earlier predictor of long-term loosening than the current 2-year threshold.

What is the most appropriate comparator group to use in assessing the performance of primary total hip prostheses within the community?

There are variations in the performance of individual prostheses used in hip replacements. Some of which have unexpectedly higher revision rates - outliers. The Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) has established a standardised multi-stage approach for identifying these devices. This is done by comparing the revision rates of individual prostheses to all other prostheses in class, with the exception of large head metal-on-metal (LHMoM) prostheses. However, improvements in device design and performance over time have required a need to reconsider the comparator group. This study aimed to identify a more specific comparator to better reflect contemporary surgical practice. The time to first revision was estimated on the data of 413,417 primary total conventional hip replacements undertaken for osteoarthritis (OA) from 01 January 2003 to 31 December 2019. Survivorship analyses with stepwise exclusions were undertaken. The first exclusion was LHMoM, followed by other non-modern bearing surfaces (defined as all the bearing couples except metal or ceramic heads on cross-linked polyethylene and mixed ceramic-on-ceramic), and then devices with modular neck-stem design or used for specific purposes (incl. constrained, dual-mobility, and head size <28 mm). Lastly, all remaining prostheses previously identified as having a higher than anticipated rate of revision (HTARR) were also excluded. These exclusions progressively reduced the cumulative percent revision (CPR) rate. The final comparator, which only includes satisfactory-performed prostheses of contemporary design and use, has a 10-year CPR of 4.30% (95% CI, 4.2-4.41) which is lower than 4.93% (95% CI, 4.84-5.02) for the current comparator used by the AOANJRR (all prostheses excluding LHMOM). Over the study period, 13 additional components were identified utilising the modified comparator. The calculation of the comparator revision rate should be re-evaluated to include only modern prosthesis constructs to ensure that poorly performing prostheses are identified early.

Acute kidney injury after primary total hip replacement

Acute kidney injury after primary total hip replacement

Total hip replacement among sickle cell patients in alow-income country-Yemen.

Sickle cell patients presented with progressive hip pain and limitation of daily activities, as evidenced by low preoperative hip scores and failed conservative therapy. Management of femoral head avascular necrosis (AVN) using total hip replacement (THR) in sickle cell disease (SCD) is widespread in developed countries, but it is still in its initiation stage in developing countries. The outcome of using cementless THR among SCD patients is still unknown with lack of published studies from regional countries. This study aimed to evaluate the outcome of using cementless primary THR among patients with sickle cell disease with end-stage hip avascular necrosis in Yemen. Thirty cementless primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) were performed for AVN of the femoral head in 27 sickle cell patients, at Al.-Thawra Modern General Hospital-Sana'a, Yemen, from January 2018 to December 2022. The mean age of the patients was 27 ± fiveyears (ranged 18-37years) with a male to female ratio was 3:1. Steinberg staging for hip AVN was stage IV, one patient (3%); stage VI, thirteen patients (45%); and stage V, sixteen patients (51%). THR was on right side 14 (52%), left side 10 (37%), and bilateral 3 (11%). The implant used was ceramic on polyethylene acetabular liner. All patients showed improvement in Harris hip score from preoperative mean hip score was 25 ± 8 points to postoperative mean hip score was 88 ± 6 points at the last follow-up. Mean of the length of stay in hospital was 12.7 ± eightdays (ranged from 4 to 32days); the mean operating time was 107 ± 23min. Three cases had superficial wound infection; four patients had five intraoperative fractures; two cases had pulmonary complications; one case had abdominal crisis. All patients had postoperative leg length discrepancy less than 2cm. None had deep infection, nerve injury, wound hematoma, aseptic loosing, dislocation, DVT, heterotopic ossification, or death. THR in SCD has a good outcome using cementless THA with a low rate of complication in Yemen, a developing country.

RISK OF REVISION FOLLOWING TOTAL HIP AND KNEE ARTHROPLASTY PERFORMED USING COMPUTER-ASSISTED TECHNOLOGIES VERSUS CONVENTIONAL TECHNIQUE: AN ANALYSIS OF NATIONAL JOINT REGISTRY DATA

AbstractIntroductionComponent mal-positioning in total hip replacement (THR) and total knee replacement (TKR) can increase the risk of revision for various reasons. Compared to conventional surgery, relatively improved accuracy of implant positioning can be achieved using computer assisted technologies including navigation, patient-specific jigs, and robotic systems. However, it is not known whether application of these technologies has improved prosthesis survival in the real-world. This study aimed to compare risk of revision for all-causes following primary THR and TKR, and revision for dislocation following primary THR performed using computer assisted technologies compared to conventional technique.MethodsWe performed an observational study using National Joint Registry data. All adult patients undergoing primary THR and TKR for osteoarthritis between 01/04/2003 to 31/12/2020 were eligible. Patients who received metal-on-metal bearing THR were excluded. We generated propensity score weights, using Sturmer weight trimming, based on: age, gender, ASA grade, side, operation funding, year of surgery, approach, and fixation. Specific additional variables included position and bearing for THR and patellar resurfacing for TKR. For THR, effective sample sizes and duration of follow up for conventional versus computer-guided and robotic-assisted analyses were 9,379 and 10,600 procedures, and approximately 18 and 4 years, respectively. For TKR, effective sample sizes and durations of follow up for conventional versus computer-guided, patient-specific jigs, and robotic-assisted groups were 92,579 procedures over 18 years, 11,665 procedures over 8 years, and 644 procedures over 3 years, respectively. Outcomes were assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis and expressed using hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI).ResultsFor THR, analysis comparing computer-guided versus conventional technique demonstrated HR of 0.771 (95%CI 0.573–1.036) p=0.085, and 0.594 (95%CI 0.297–1.190) p=0.142, for revision for all-causes and dislocation, respectively. When comparing robotic-assisted versus conventional technique, HR for revision for all-causes was 0.480 (95%CI 0.067 –3.452) p=0.466. For TKR, compared to conventional surgery, HR for all-cause revision for procedures performed using computer guidance and patient-specific jigs were 0.967 (95% CI 0.888–1.052) p=0.430, and 0.937 (95% CI 0.708–1.241) p=0.65, respectively. HR for analysis comparing robotic-assisted versus conventional technique was 2.0940 (0.2423, 18.0995) p = 0.50.ConclusionsThis is the largest study investigating this topic utilising propensity score analysis methods. We did not find a statistically significant difference in revision for all-causes and dislocation although these analyses are underpowered to detect smaller differences in effect size between groups. Additional comparison for revision for dislocation between robotic-assisted versus conventionally performed THR was not performed as this is a subset of revision for all-causes and wide confidence intervals were already observed for that analysis. It is also important to mention this NJR analysis study is of an observational study design which has inherent limitations. Nonetheless, this is the most feasible study design to answer this research question requiring use of a large data set due to revision being a rare outcome.Declaration of Interest(b) declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research reported:I declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research project.

TRAINING IN HIP AND KNEE ARTHROPLASTY: ARE THEY DOING ENOUGH?

Orthopaedic surgery is a practical surgical specialization field, the exit exam for registrars remains written and oral. Despite logbook evaluation and surgical work-based assessments, the question remains: can registrars perform elective surgery upon qualification? In South Africa, obstacles to elective surgical training include the trauma workload, financial constraints, fellowships and the Covid pandemic. In hip and knee arthroplasty, new approaches like the direct anterior approach (DAA) and robotic-assisted knee surgery also contributed to the dilution of cases available for registrar training. There are concerns that orthopaedic registrars do not perform enough cases to achieve surgical proficiency.Review of the last 4 years of registrar logbooks in hip and knee arthroplasty surgery performed in a single tertiary academic hospital in South Africa. We included all primary total hip replacements (THR), total knee replacements (TKR) and hemiarthroplasties (HA) done for neck of femur (NOF) fractures between 1 April 2019 and 30 March 2023. Differentiation between registrar assisting, registrar performing with consultant supervision and registrar performing independent surgery was done.990 hip arthroplasties (472 Primary THR, 216 NOF THR, 302 NOF HA) and 316 Primary TKR were performed during the study period. In primary elective THR the posterior approach was dominant and used in 76% of cases. In NOF THA the DAA was dominant used in 98% of cases. Primary TKR robotic-assisted technologies was used in 27% (n=94) cases. Registrars as the primary surgeon were the highest in NOF THA at 70% of cases and the lowest performing TKR at 25%. During 3-month rotations, an average registrar performed 12 (2 TKR and 10 THR) and assisted in 35 (10 TKR and 25 THR) cases.Despite the large number of arthroplasties operations being performed over the last 4-year period, the surgical cases done by registrars are below, the proposed minimal cases to provide surgical proficiency during their training period.