Risk Of Re-revision Research Articles

Higher hospital volume reduces early failure rates in single-stage revision TKR for infection: An analysis of the United Kingdom National Joint Registry and National Administrative Databases.

Revision knee replacement (RevKR) for infection is rare but increasing. It is hypothesised that higher hospital volume reduces adverse outcomes. The aim was to estimate the association of surgical unit volume with outcomes following first, single-stage RevKR for infection. This population-based cohort study merged data from the United Kingdom National Joint Registry, Hospital Episode Statistics, National Patient Reported Outcome Measures and the Civil Registrations of Death. Patients undergoing procedures between 1 January 2009 and 30 June 2019 were included. Early outcomes were chosen to reflect the quality of the surgical provision and included re-revision at 2 years, mortality, serious medical complications, length of stay and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Adjusted fixed effect multivariable regression models were used to examine the association between surgical unit mean annual caseload and the risk of adverse outcomes. A total of 1477 patients underwent first-time single-stage RevKRs for infection across 267 surgical units and 716 surgeons. Following adjustment for age, gender, American Society of Anaesthesiologists grade, surgeon volume, year of surgery and operation funder and modelling surgical unit volume with restricted cubic spline, a greater mean annual volume was associated with a lower risk of re-revision at 2 years. The odds of re-revision in hospitals performing fewer than or equal to 12 cases per year was 2.53 (95% confidence interval = 1.50-4.31) times more likely than hospitals performing three to four cases per month. Annual variation in surgical unit volume was not associated with mortality and serious medical complications within 90 days. Only 99 out of 1477 (7%) of patients had linked PROMs which precluded subsequent analysis. Overall, higher volume surgical units had lower rates of early re-revision following the first RevKR for infection. We were unable to provide recommended specific volume thresholds for units; however, the probability of re-revision appears to be lowest in the highest volume units. Level III, retrospective cohort study of prospectively collected data.

Modular dual-mobility constructs outperformed large femoral heads in 299 revision total hip arthroplasties at mid-term follow-up.

The purpose of this study was to directly compare the Modular Dual Mobility (MDM) Mobile Bearing Hip System (Stryker, USA) and large femoral heads (LFHs) in revision total hip arthroplasties (THAs) at mid-term follow-up, with specific emphasis on survival free of re-revision for dislocation, any re-revision, dislocation, and the risk of metal-related complications. We identified 299 revision THAs performed at a single tertiary care academic institution from March 2011 to July 2014. Aseptic loosening of the acetabular component (n = 65), dislocation (n = 58), and reimplantation as part of a two-stage exchange protocol (n = 57) were the most common reasons for index revision. MDM constructs were used in 123 cases, and LFHs were used in 176 cases. Mean age was 66 years (28 to 93), mean BMI was 31 kg/m2 (18 to 55), and 45% (n = 136) were female. Mean follow-up was seven years (2 to 12). The ten-year survival free of re-revision for dislocation was 99% (95% CI 95 to 100) in the MDM cohort and 91% (95% CI 84 to 96) in the LFH cohort, with a significantly increased risk of re-revision for dislocation in the LFH cohort (HR 7.1 (95% CI 1.3 to 40.8); p = 0.023). The ten-year survival free of any re-revision was 92% (95% CI 82 to 99%) in the MDM cohort and 84% (95% CI 74 to 90) in the LFH cohort with a significantly increased risk of any re-revision in the LFH cohort (HR 2.6 (95% CI 1.1 to 5.9); p = 0.024). The ten-year survival free of any dislocation was 95% (95% CI 85 to 99) in the MDM cohort and 87% (95% CI 78 to 92) in the LFH cohort with a significantly increased risk of any dislocation in the LFH cohort (HR 2.7 (95% CI 1.1 to 6.3); p = 0.028). There were no re-revisions or reoperations for metallosis or corrosion in the MDM cohort. In this head-to-head comparison, revision THAs with a MDM construct safely and effectively lowered the risk of re-revision for dislocation, any re-revision, and any dislocation compared to LFH at mid-term follow-up. There were no re-revisions or reoperations for metallosis or corrosion in the MDM cohort.

Dual-Mobility Articulations in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Comparison with Metal or Ceramic on Highly Cross-Linked Polyethylene and Constrained Articulations.

The increased availability of dual-mobility acetabular constructs (DMCs) provides surgeons with a newer option to increase the effective femoral head size in revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA). We sought to evaluate risks of re-revision and prosthetic dislocation following rTHA involving a DMC compared with other articulations. A cohort study was conducted using data from a U.S. integrated health-care system's Total Joint Replacement Registry. Adult patients who underwent primary THA and went on to undergo an aseptic rTHA in 2002 to 2022 were identified. Patients who received a DMC, a constrained liner, or a metal or ceramic unipolar femoral head on highly cross-linked polyethylene (XLPE) at the time of rTHA were the treatment groups. Subsequent aseptic re-revision and dislocation were the outcomes of interest. Multivariable Cox proportional-hazards regression was used to evaluate the risks of the outcomes, with adjustment for patient, operative, and surgeon confounders. The analyzed rTHAs comprised 375 with a DMC, 268 with a constrained liner, 995 with a <36-mm head on XLPE, and 2,087 with a ≥36-mm head on XLPE. DMC utilization increased from 1.0% of rTHAs in 2011 to 21.6% in 2022. In adjusted analyses, a higher re-revision risk was observed for the constrained liner (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.43, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.29 to 4.59), <36 mm on XLPE (HR = 2.05, 95% CI = 1.13 to 3.75), and ≥36 mm on XLPE (HR = 2.03, 95% CI = 1.19 to 3.48) groups compared with the DMC group. A higher dislocation risk was observed in both XLPE groups (<36 mm: HR = 2.04, 95% CI = 1.33 to 3.14; ≥36 mm: HR = 2.46, 95% CI = 1.69 to 3.57) compared with the DMC group; a nonsignificant trend toward a higher dislocation rate in the group with a constrained liner than in the DMC group was also observed. In a large U.S.-based cohort, rTHAs using DMCs had the lowest re-revision risk and dislocation risk. Both outcomes were significantly lower than those using a unipolar femoral head on XLPE, re-revision risk was significantly lower than using a constrained liner, and dislocation risk trended toward a lower risk than using a constrained liner. Therapeutic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Is Younger Age a Risk Factor for Failure Following Aseptic Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty?

BackgroundRevision total knee arthroplasties (rTKAs) are being performed more frequently in the United States in younger patients. Few large studies have evaluated the effect of age following rTKA. The study sought to evaluate the effect of age on rTKA outcomes. MethodsThe American Joint Replacement Registry was used to identify aseptic rTKAs in younger (18 to 64 years, n = 32,631) and older (> 65 years, n = 43,992) patients from January 2012 to September 2020, allowing for a minimum 2-year follow-up. The mean age was 56 years in the younger cohort and 73 years in the older cohort. The mean follow-up was 5.4 years. Sex and body mass index were similar between groups. Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis was performed with rerevision as the primary endpoint. Secondarily, multivariate analyses were performed to adjust for demographics and comorbidities. ResultsThe proportion with rerevision was higher in the younger cohort compared to the older (8.1 versus 5.4%, P < 0.001). The 10-year survivorship free of all-cause rerevision was 90.2% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 89.7 to 90.7) in the younger cohort versus 93.7% (95% CI: 93.4 to 94.1) in the older cohort (P < 0.0001). Younger age was significantly associated with a higher adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for all-cause rerevision (HR: 1.4, 95% CI: 1.3 to 1.6), as were men (HR: 1.4, 95% CI: 1.2 to 1.5) and initial revision for instability (HR: 1.3, 95% CI: 1.1 to 1.5). In a subgroup analysis of patients aged < 65 years, a 5-year decrease in age was associated with a 10.0% increase in risk of rerevision. Indications for rerevisions differed among the younger and older cohorts (P < 0.01): infection (30.2 versus 34.9%), aseptic loosening (19.0 versus 15.8%), and instability (12.2 versus 12.7%). ConclusionsYounger age, men, and initial revision performed for instability were associated with significantly increased risk for all-cause rerevision following aseptic rTKA. Notably, age may have a continuous effect on rerevision rates, as each 5-year decrease in age was associated with a 10% increase in risk of rerevision. Future research may further elucidate these increased risks in this younger patient population.

Association between surgeon and hospital volume and outcome of first-time revision hip arthroplasty for aseptic loosening.

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

Use of morselized bone allograft in revision hip arthroplasty for massive acetabular defect: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Many treatment options are available for the revision of large acetabular defects. Debate continues as to which technique is most effective. This meta-analysis aimed to determine the rates of failure of acetabular bone defects Paprosky type III or American Academy of Orthopaedic types III-IV treated with morselized allograft in association with cemented cup or cementless cup or reinforcement devices. The US National Library of Medicine (PubMed/MEDLINE), EMBASE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were queried for publications from January 1980 to 1 April 2024 utilizing keywords pertinent to total hip arthroplasty (THA), acetabular impaction bone grafting and revision THA. The main outcome measure was the 9-year implant failure rate. Thirty-nine articles were eligible for inclusion in the current study. We found 41 treatment approaches that we grouped into three different treatment options: 1 = morselized allograft and cemented cup (10 studies); 2 =morselized allograft and cementless cup (nine studies); 3 = morselized allograft and device (22 studies). The overall implant failure rate was 2.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.6%-2.8%) at a mean of 9.2 years. There was no significant difference in failure rates between different treatment options (1.6% [95% CI, 0.9%-2.6%]) for morselized allograft and cemented cup; 2.1% (95% CI, 1.4%-3.2%) for morselized allograft and cementless cup; 2.5% (95% CI, 1.7%-3.7%) for morselized allograft and device) between the three different types of treatment (heterogeneity between groups p = 0.351).It was determined that the number one cause of failure was aseptic loosening (80.5%), followed by infection (13.1%) and dislocation (6.4%). THA with reinforcement devices has a higher incidence of infection (3.6 vs. 0.7%, p = 0.001) and dislocation (1.4 vs. 0.6%, p = 0.010) than THA with a cemented cup. The use of morselized allograft in hip revision of large acetabular defects has low implant failure rates, independently of the associated type of implant. Reinforcement devices increase the risk of re-revision for infection and dislocation. Level III.

Risk factors associated with re-revision following revision total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review.

The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and bias evaluation of the current literature to create an overview of risk factors for re-revision following revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA). A systematic search of MEDLINE and Embase was completed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The studies were required to include a population of index rTKAs. Primary or secondary outcomes had to be re-revision. The association between preoperative factors and the effect on the risk for re-revision was also required to be reported by the studies. The search yielded 4,847 studies, of which 15 were included. A majority of the studies were retrospective cohorts or registry studies. In total, 26 significant risk factors for re-revision were identified. Of these, the following risk factors were consistent across multiple studies: age at the time of index revision, male sex, index revision being partial revision, and index revision due to infection. Modifiable risk factors were opioid use, BMI > 40 kg/m2, and anaemia. History of one-stage revision due to infection was associated with the highest risk of re-revision. Overall, 26 risk factors have been associated with an increased risk of re-revision following rTKA. However, various levels of methodological bias were found in the studies. Future studies should ensure valid comparisons by including patients with identical indications and using clear definitions for accurate assessments.

Prevalence and Impact of Unexpected Positive Intraoperative Cultures in Total Hip or Knee Revision Surgery

BackgroundOur aim was to evaluate the prevalence and impact of unexpected positive intraoperative cultures (UPICs) on the outcome of presumed aseptic total knee and hip revision surgery. MethodsData regarding patients who underwent elective total hip or knee revision surgery from January 2003 to July 2017 due to preoperatively presumed aseptic reasons was retrospectively reviewed. Partial revisions and patients who had follow-ups below 60 months were excluded from the study. In all surgeries, at least 3 intraoperative samples were taken for microbial culture. Failure was defined as the need for rerevision due to any cause at 5 years and/or the need for antibiotic suppressive therapy. Overall, 123 total hip and 431 total knee revisions were eligible for the study. All cases had at least a 5 years follow-up. ResultsThere were 420 cases (75.8%) that had all cultures negative, 108 (19.5%) had a single UPIC, and 26 (4.7%) had either ≥2 UPICs for the same microorganism or 1 UPIC for a virulent microorganism. This latter group was not associated with a significantly higher failure rate (2 of 26, 7.7%) compared to those in the aseptic group (54 of 528, 10.2%). Revisions performed within the first 24 months after primary implantation had a higher 5-years rerevision rate (19.3 versus 8.4%, P = .01), mainly attributable to aseptic causes. ConclusionsTotal hip and knee revisions with UPICs were not significantly associated with a higher rerevision risk at 5 years. Those revisions performed within the first 24 months after primary arthroplasty had a higher rate of any-cause failure.

Unsuspected Positive Intraoperative Cultures in Aseptic Revision Knee Arthroplasty: Prevalence, Management, and Infection-Free Survivorship

BackgroundThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the management and outcomes of aseptic revision total knee arthroplasty (arTKA) with unsuspected positive cultures (UPCs) compared to those with sterile cultures. MethodsThe institutional database at a single tertiary center was retrospectively reviewed for arTKA from January 2013 to October 2023. Patients who met Musculoskeletal Infection Society criteria for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) based on available preoperative infectious workup, received antibiotic spacers, or did not have at least 1 year of follow-up were excluded. Patients were stratified based on intraoperative cultures into 4 cohorts: sterile cultures, 1 UPC, ≥ 2 UPCs with different organisms, and ≥ 2 UPCs with the same organism. Univariable analyses were used to compare these groups. Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis assessed infection-free survival at 5 years, and Cox proportional hazards regressions were used to evaluate factors that influence infection-free survival. A total of 691 arTKAs at a mean follow-up of 4.2 years were included in the study. Of these, 49 (7.1%) had 1 UPC with a new organism, 10 (1.4%) had ≥2 UPCs of the same organism, and 2 (0.2%) had ≥2 UPCs with different organisms. ResultsPostoperative antibiotics were prescribed to 114 (16.5%) patients—13 (26.5%) with 1 UPC, 6 (60.0%) with ≥2 UPCs of the same organism, and 0 (0.0%) of patients who had ≥2 UPCs of different organisms. There were no differences in infection-free survival at 5 years between patients who had sterile cultures and 1 UPC (96 versus 89%; P = .39) nor between sterile cultures and ≥2 UPCs of different organisms (96 versus 100%; P < .72). However, patients who had ≥2 UPCs of the same organism had significantly worse infection-free survival at 5 years compared to patients who had sterile cultures (58 versus 96%; P < .001). Cox proportional hazards regression suggested that when adjusting for covariates, an American Society of Anesthesiologists classification of ≥3 (hazard ratio [HR] = 3.1; P = .007), ≥2 UPCs of the same organism (HR = 11.0; P < .001), 1 UPC (HR = 4.2; P = .018), and arTKA with hinge constructs (HR = 4.1; P = .008) were associated with increased risk of rerevision for PJI. ConclusionsPatients who had 1 UPC or ≥2 UPCs with different organisms had similar infection-free survival at 5 years as patients who had sterile cultures. However, patients who had ≥2 UPCs of the same organism had significantly worse infection-free survival at 5 years. Overall, 1 UPC or ≥2 UPCs of the same organism at the time of arTKA may suggest the patient is at higher risk of rerevision for PJI. More studies are needed to determine what interventions can be implemented to mitigate this risk.

OUTCOMES OF TRABECULAR METAL IN REVISION ACETABULAR RECONSTRUCTION IN AUCKLAND

IntroductionAcetabular component loosening with associated bone loss is a challenge in revision hip arthroplasty. Trabecular Metal (TM) by Zimmer Biomet has been shown to have greater implant survivorship for all-cause acetabular revision in small cohort retrospective studies. Our study aims to review outcomes of acetabular TM implants locally.MethodThis is a retrospective observational study using data from Auckland City and North Shore Hospitals from 1st of January 2010 to 31st of December 2020. Primary outcome is implant survivorship (re-revision acetabular surgery for any cause) demonstrated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Secondary outcome is indication for index revision and re-revision surgery. Multivariate analysis used to identify statistically significant factors for re-revision surgery.Results225 cases used acetabular TM implants (shells and/or augments) over 10 years. Indications include aseptic loosening (63%), instability (15%) and infection (13%). Of these, 12% (n=28) had further re-revision for infection (54%) and instability (21%). Median time to re-revision was 156 days (range 11 – 2022). No cases of re-revision were due to failure of bony ingrowth or acetabular component loosening. Ethnicity, smoking status, and age were not risk factors for re-revision procedures. Additionally, previous prosthetic joint infection, ethnicity, sex and age were not significant risk factors for re-revision due to infection. Implant survivorship was 80% at 1 year, 71% at 5 years and 64% at 10 years.DiscussionMain indications for re-revision were infection and instability. Demographic factors and co-morbidities did not correlate with increased re-revision risk. Survivorship is poorer compared to cumulative survivorship reported by the New Zealand Joint Registry (NZJR). Explanations are multifactorial and possibly contributed by underestimation of true revision rates by registry data.ConclusionsWe need to identify alternate causes for poorer survivorship and review the role of TM implants in acetabular revision within our specified population.

ASSOCIATION BETWEEN SURGEON AND CENTRE VOLUME AND OUTCOME OF FIRST-TIME REVISION HIP ARTHROPLASTY FOR ASEPTIC LOOSENING: A STUDY USING THE NJR DATASET

This study evaluates the association between consultant and hospital volume and the risk of re-revision and 90-day mortality following first-time revision of primary hip replacement for aseptic loosening.We conducted a cohort study of first-time, single-stage revision hip replacements (RHR) performed for aseptic loosening and recorded in the National Joint Registry (NJR) data for England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the Isle of Man between 2003 and 2019. Patient identifiers were used to link records to national mortality data, and to NJR data to identify subsequent re-revision procedures. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard models with restricted cubic splines were used to define associations between volume and outcome.Among 12,676 RHR there were 513 re-revisions within two years, and 95 deaths within 90 days of surgery. The risk of re-revision was highest for a consultant's first RHR (Hazard Ratio (HR) 1·58 (95%CI 1·16 to 2·15)) and remained significantly elevated for their first 26 cases (HR 1·26 (95%CI 1·00 to 1·58)). Annual consultant volumes of five/year were associated with an almost 30% greater risk of re-revision (HR 1·28 (95%CI 1·00 to 1·64)) and 80% greater risk of 90-day mortality (HR 1·81 (95%CI 1·02 to 3·21)) compared to volumes of 20/year. RHR performed at hospitals which had cumulatively undertaken fewer than 168 RHR were at up to 70% greater risk of re-revision (HR 1·70 (95% CI 1·12 to 2·60)), and those having undertaken fewer than 309 RHR were at up to three times greater risk of 90-day mortality (HR 3·06 (95% CI 1·19 to 7·86)).This study found a significantly higher risk of re-revision and early postoperative mortality following first-time single-stage RHR for aseptic loosening when performed by lower-volume consultants and at lower-volume institutions, supporting the move towards the centralisation of such cases towards higher-volume units and surgeons.

Contemporary Aseptic Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty in Patients ≤50 Years of Age: Results of >500 Cases.

There has been a paucity of long-term outcomes data on aseptic revision total hip arthroplasties (THAs) in the young adult population. The purpose of this study was to evaluate implant survivorship, complications, and clinical outcomes in a large cohort of contemporary aseptic revision THAs in patients ≤50 years of age at the time of the surgical procedure. We identified 545 aseptic revision THAs performed at a single academic institution from 2000 to 2020 in patients who were 18 to 50 years of age. Patients who underwent conversion THAs and patients with a history of any ipsilateral hip infection were excluded. The mean age was 43 years, the mean body mass index (BMI) was 29 kg/m 2 , and 63% were female. The index indication for revision THA was aseptic loosening in 46% of cases, polyethylene wear or osteolysis in 28% of cases (all revisions of conventional polyethylene), and dislocation in 11% of cases. There were 126 hips (23%) that had undergone at least 1 previous revision (median, 1 revision [range, 1 to 5 revisions]). The mean follow-up was 10 years. In the entire cohort, the 20-year survivorship free of any re-revision was 76% (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 69% to 82%). There were 87 re-revisions, with 31 dislocations, 18 cases of aseptic loosening of the femoral component, and 16 periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) being the most common reasons for re-revision. Dislocation as the indication for the index revision was associated with an increased risk of re-revision (hazard ratio, 2.9; p < 0.001). The 20-year survivorship free of any reoperation was 73% (95% CI, 66% to 78%). There were 75 nonoperative complications (14%), including 32 dislocations. The mean Harris hip score significantly improved (p < 0.001) from 65 preoperatively to 81 at 10 years postoperatively. Contemporary aseptic revision THAs in patients ≤50 years of age demonstrated a re-revision risk of approximately 1 in 4 at 20 years. Dislocation, aseptic loosening of the femoral component, and PJI were the most common reasons for re-revision. Index revision THAs for dislocation had a 3 times higher risk of re-revision. Therapeutic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Characteristics associated with rerevision of primary inlay and onlay reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Analysis from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry

BackgroundTwo designs of primary reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA), inlay reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (in-rTSA) and onlay reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (on-rTSA) that had undergone an aseptic revision were compared to determine differences in the rate of rerevision. MethodsIn this comparative observational national registry study between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2021, all rTSA utilizing either a modular inlay or onlay metaphyseal humeral component that had been revised for aseptic reasons formed 2 cohort groups. The cumulative percentage rerevision (2nd CPR) was determined using Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship and hazard ratios (HRs) from Cox proportional hazard models adjusted for age and sex. A minor category revision involved exchange of parts not fixed to bone whilst major revisions did. The primary and revision diagnoses, surgeon primary volume experience, and revision category were compared. Shoulder Modular Replacement (SMR)/SMR L1 or L2 combination (Lima Corporate, San Daniele del Friuli, Italy) was excluded at subanalysis. ResultsThe 2nd CPR at 3 years was 20.4% (95% confidence interval 17.1, 24.1) for in-rTSA (n = 571) and 16.1%(11.6, 22.2) for on-rTSA (n = 249). The risk of rerevision was not different between the 2 cohort groups. Primary diagnosis fracture was associated with an increased risk of rerevision for on-rTSA (entire period on-rTSA HR = 3.16(1.50, 6.68), P = .002), and in-rTSA at subanalysis (entire period on-rTSA HR = 2.91(1.33, 6.33), P = .007). 59.9% of in-rTSA and 24.1% of on-rTSA aseptic revisions were minor. The revision diagnosis, the surgical experience of rTSA and if the revision was major or minor did not change the rate of rerevision. The most common reason for both in-rTSA (50%) and (43.2%) on-rTSA rerevision was instability/dislocation. DiscussionRerevision rates of in-rTSA and on-rTSA after aseptic revision are high. The primary rather the revision diagnosis changed rerevision rates in contemporary rTSA surgery. Minor revisions did not reduce rerevision rates for in-rTSA or on-rTSA compared to humeral/glenoid revision. Increased surgical experience of primary rTSA did not change the rate of rerevision of in-rTSA or on-rTSA.

Re-revision Total Knee Arthroplasty: Causes, Risk Factors and Results.

The rate of re-revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) ranges between 4% and 10%, depending on the cause of the procedure. Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) and periprosthetic fracture are the main causes of re-revision TKA. The likelihood of implant survival of re-revision TKA diminishes with each subsequent revision, with PJI being the main cause of multiple revisions. Acute early aseptic revision TKA (within 90 days of surgery) involves a high risk of re-revision at 2 years and a high risk of subsequent PJI. The use of antibiotic-loaded cement is associated with lower risk of re-revision. Patients younger than 50 years experiencing aseptic revision TKA have a 1 in 3 risk of re-revision. Patients revised for instability or having prior TKA revisions have the highest risk of re-revision at 10 years. Patients younger than 55 years experiencing revision TKA have a 5-year revision-free survival of 80%.

THE EFFECT OF HOSPITAL CASE VOLUME ON RE-REVISION FOLLOWING REVISION TOTAL HIP ARTHROPLASTY: A NATIONAL STUDY USING THE SCOTTISH ARTHROPLASTY PROJECT DATASET

The aim of this study was to measure the effect of hospital case volume on the survival of revision total hip arthroplasty (RTHA).This is a retrospective analysis of Scottish Arthroplasty Project data, a nationwide audit which prospectively collects data on all arthroplasty procedures performed in Scotland. The primary outcome was RTHA survival at ten years. The primary explanatory variable was the effect of hospital case volume per year on RTHA survival. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were plotted with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to determine the lifespan of RTHA. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards were used to estimate relative revision risks over time. Hazard ratios (HRs) were reported with 95% CI, and p-value &lt; 0.05 was considered statistically significant.From 1999 to 2019, 13,020 patients underwent RTHA surgery in Scotland (median age at RTHA 70 years (interquartile range (IQR) 62 to 77)). In all, 5,721 (43.9%) were female, and 1065 (8.2%) were treated for infection. 714 (5.5%) underwent a second revision procedure. Co-morbidity, younger age at index revision, and positive infection status were associated with need for re-revision (p&lt;0.001). The ten-year survival estimate for RTHA was 93.3% (95% CI 92.8 to 93.8). Adjusting for sex, age, surgeon volume, and indication for revision, high hospital case volume was not significantly associated with lower risk of re-revision (HR1, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.00, p 0.073)).The majority of RTHA in Scotland survive up to ten years. Increasing yearly hospital case volume cases is not independently associated with a significant risk reduction of re-revision.

Impact of Comorbidities and Previous Surgery on Mid-Term Results of Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty for Periprosthetic Joint Infection.

(1) Background: In the treatment of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), the individual host status and previous surgical procedures appear to have a relevant influence on success rates and clinical outcome of knee revision surgery. Current data about the predictive value are limited in this subgroup of patients. (2) Methods: Retrospectively, 107 patients (109 knees) undergoing two-stage exchange knee arthroplasty for PJI using a rotating-hinge design with at least two years follow-up. The cumulative incidence (CI) for different endpoints was estimated with death as competing risk. Univariate and multivariate analyses for potential predictive factors were performed. Patient-related outcome measures (PROMs) for clinical outcome were evaluated. (3) Results: At 8 years, the CI of any revision was 29.6%, and of any reoperation was 38.9%. Significant predictors for risk of re-revision were the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) and the number of previous surgical procedures prior to explanation of the infected implant. The functional and clinical outcome demonstrated acceptable results in the present cohort with a high comorbidity level. (4) Conclusions: A compromised host status and multiple previous surgical procedures were identified as negative predictors for re-revision knee surgery in the treatment of PJI. Reinfection remained the major reason for re-revision. Overall mortality was high.

HIGH RATE OF LOOSENING OF ENDOLINK MODULAR HINGE KNEE ARTHROPLASTY IN PATIENTS UNDER 70 YEARS OLD

AbstractIntroductionChoosing a hinged implant in the revision knee arthroplasty (rTKA) setting is challenging and limited data on implant performance exists. We present the survivorship and reason for failure in rTKA performed at our institution using the LINK hinge prosthesis, predominantly the cemented modular Endo-Model prosthesis.Methodology260 consecutive revision knee cases performed between 2012 and 2020 were reviewed retrospectively. Mean follow up was 27 months (range 0 to 107). Survivorship was analysed in Stata using a Log Rank test to compare performance in patients stratified according to age (≥80 years old (76 cases), 70–79 years (104 cases) and ≤70 years (80 cases).Results53 patients died and 48/207 (23%) cases in 40 patients underwent re-revision. Reasons for re-revision were aseptic loosening (21), infection (12), instability (4), extensor failure (1), stiffness (1), fracture (1) and other (8). Loosening was seen in the femur (8), tibia (5), and both the femur and tibia (8). Sub-group analysis of patients according to age showed a significantly higher failure rate in younger patients (6 failures (8%) in patients ≥80, 27 failures (26%) in 70–79 and 15 (19%) in ≤70 (p = 0.02). Failure in patients ≤70 was predominantly due to aseptic loosening (8/15).ConclusionHere we report a significantly higher rate of LINK hinge prostheses failure in patients &lt;70 undergoing rTKA. Consent should consider the risk of re-revision in this patient group.

FEWER SUBSEQUENT REVISIONS WITH MODULAR DUAL-MOBILITY CONSTRUCTS THAN LARGE FEMORAL HEADS IN REVISION TOTAL HIP ARTHROPLASTIES AT TEN YEARS

There is a paucity of mid-term data on modular dual-mobility (MDM) constructs versus large (≥40 mm) femoral heads (LFH) in revision total hip arthroplasties (THAs). The purpose of this study was to update our prior series at 10 years, with specific emphasis on survivorships free of re-revision for dislocation, any re-revision, and dislocation.We identified 300 revision THAs performed at a single tertiary care academic institution from 2011 to 2014. Aseptic loosening of the acetabular component (n=65), dislocation (n=59), and reimplantation as part of a two-stage exchange protocol (n=57) were the most common reasons for index revision. Dual-mobility constructs were used in 124 cases, and LFH were used in 176 cases. Mean age was 66 years, mean BMI was 31 kg/m2, and 45% were female. Mean follow-up was 7 years.The 10-year survivorship free of re-revision for dislocation was 97% in the MDM cohort and 91% in the LFH cohort with a significantly increased risk of re-revision for dislocation in the LFH cohort (HR 5.2; p=0.03). The 10-year survivorship free of any re-revision was 90% in the MDM cohort and 84% in the LFH cohort with a significantly increased risk of any re-revision in the LFH cohort (HR 2.5; p=0.04). The 10-year survivorship free of any dislocation was 92% in the MDM cohort and 87% in the LFH cohort. There was a trend towards an increased risk of any dislocation in the LFH cohort (HR 2.3; p=0.06).In this head-to-head comparison, revision THAs using MDM constructs had a significantly lower risk of re-revision for dislocation compared to LFH at 10 years. In addition, there was a trend towards lower risk of any dislocation.Level of Evidence: IV

REVISION BEARING SELECTION FOLLOWING CERAMIC BEARING FRACTURE: A PATIENT SAFETY DECISION

Ceramic bearing fractures are rare events, but mandate revision and implantation of new bearings. Revisions using metal heads have been reported to lead to gross volumetric head wear (due to abrasive retained ceramic micro-debris), cobalt toxicity, multi-organ failure and death. Such complications are widely published (50+ reports), yet we know that patients continue to be put at risk. Using data from the NJR and AOANJRR, this study seeks to compare the risk of re-revision and death by revision bearing combination following a ceramic bearing fracture.Data were extracted from the NJR and AOANJRR, identifying revisions for ceramic bearing fracture. Subsequent outcomes of survival, re-revision and death were compared between revision bearing combinations (ceramic-on-ceramic, ceramic-on-polyethylene, and metal-on-polyethylene).366 cases were available for analysis from the NJR dataset (MoP=34, CoP=112, CoC=221) and 174 from the AOANJRR dataset (MoP=17, CoP=44, CoC=113). The overall incidence rate of adverse outcome (revision or death) was 0.65 for metal heads and 0.23 for ceramic head articulations (p=0.0012) across the whole time period (NJR). Kaplan-Meir survival estimates demonstrate an increased risk of both re-revision and death where a metal head has been used vs a ceramic head following revision for ceramic fracture.There are few decisions in arthroplasty surgery that can lead to serious harm or death for our patients, but revision using a metal head following ceramic bearing fracture is one of them. This study enhances the signal of what is already known but previously only reported as inherently low-level evidence (case reports and small series) due to event rarity. Use of a metal head in revision for ceramic fracture represents an avoidable patient safety issue, which revision guidelines should seek to address.

Similar revision rate after cemented and cementless femoral revisions for periprosthetic femoral fractures in total hip arthroplasty: analysis of 1,879 revision hip arthroplasties in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register

Periprosthetic femoral fracture (PPF) after total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a serious complication, as it often is followed by functional deficits and morbidity. There is no consensus regarding the optimal stem fixation method and whether additional cup replacement is beneficial. The aim of our study was to perform a direct comparison of reasons and risk of re-revision between cemented and uncemented revision THAs following PPF using registry data. 1,879 patients registered in the Dutch Arthroplasty Registry (LROI) who underwent a first-time revision for PPF between 2007 and 2021 (cemented stem: n = 555; uncemented stem: n = 1,324) were included. Competing risk survival analysis and multivariable Cox proportional hazard analyses were performed. 5- and 10-year crude cumulative incidence of re-revision following revision for PPF was similar between cemented (resp. 13%, 95% CI 10-16 and 18%, CI 13-24) and uncemented (resp. 11%, CI 10-13 and 13%, CI 11-16) revisions. Multivariable Cox regression analysis, adjusting for potential confounders, showed a similar risk of revision for uncemented and cemented revision stems. Finally, we found no difference in risk of re-revision between a total revision (HR 1.2, 0.6-2.1) compared with a stem revision. We found no difference in the risk of re-revision between cemented and uncemented revision stems after revision for PPF.