The survivorship of revision total hip replacement with severe proximal bone deficiency using a modular taper fluted prosthesis.

Contemporary uncemented femoral revision hip systems have become commonly used over the past decade and have enabled the reconstruction of leg length, offset and anteversion as independent variables through the use of modular junctions. Modular junction failures between the proximal body and distal stem have been described with revision systems, although this is rare. We sought to identify the survivorship of one revision system in a salvage arthroplasty scenario where no host bone support of the modular junction was present. From a series of 136 patients, 15 patients (16 hips) were identified without host bone support of the modular junction with a mean radiological follow up of over 6 years (76 months +/- 35 months). There have been no cases of prosthetic fracture over the follow-up duration, with two revisions performed for reasons of aseptic loosening and infection. The mean BMI of the study group was 30.2 with 78% of the cohort classified as overweight or obese. It is well recognised that, host bone support of the modular junction is preferable, however the satisfactory outcomes over the midterm in these complex patients suggests that modular revision systems remain an option.

Learning curve with a new primary total knee arthroplasty implant: a multicenter perspective with more than 2000 patients.

BACKGROUND: This study provides an example for evaluating learning curve when introducing a new knee system. METHODS: Thirty-five investigators across 22 sites prospectively implanted 843 subjects with currently available products (group A). Seventy-seven investigators across 48 sites prospectively implanted 2330 subjects with the ATTUNE Knee System; in which the first 10 subjects for each surgeon were the learning curve cases (group B, N = 611), and the later subjects were designated as group C (N = 1719). Surgical time, rates of intraoperative and early postoperative complications, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) at a minimum of 1 year were compared. RESULTS: Mean (standard deviation) surgical time was 72.0 (21.6) minutes for group A, 83.0 (24.2) for group B, and 72.1 (24.1) for group C (P < .001 for group B vs group C; P = .955 for group C vs group A). Intraoperative, early (<90 day) complication rates, and PROMs were similar for all groups. CONCLUSIONS: The new knee system learning curve was characterized by a slightly longer surgical time with no negative impact on complications or PROMs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

One- and two-stage surgical revision of peri-prosthetic joint infection of the hip: a pooled individual participant data analysis of 44 cohort studies.

One-stage and two-stage revision strategies are the two main options for treating established chronic peri-prosthetic joint infection (PJI) of the hip; however, there is uncertainty regarding which is the best treatment option. We aimed to compare the risk of re-infection between the two revision strategies using pooled individual participant data (IPD). Observational cohort studies with PJI of the hip treated exclusively by one- or two-stage revision and reporting re-infection outcomes were retrieved by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform; as well as email contact with investigators. We analysed IPD of 1856 participants with PJI of the hip from 44 cohorts across four continents. The primary outcome was re-infection (recurrence of infection by the same organism(s) and/or re-infection with a new organism(s)). Hazard ratios (HRs) for re-infection were calculated using Cox proportional frailty hazards models. After a median follow-up of 3.7 years, 222 re-infections were recorded. Re-infection rates per 1000 person-years of follow-up were 16.8 (95% CI 13.6-20.7) and 32.3 (95% CI 27.3-38.3) for one-stage and two-stage strategies respectively. The age- and sex-adjusted HR of re-infection for two-stage revision was 1.70 (0.58-5.00) when compared with one-stage revision. The association remained consistently absent after further adjustment for potential confounders. The HRs did not vary importantly in clinically relevant subgroups. Analysis of pooled individual patient data suggest that a one-stage revision strategy may be as effective as a two-stage revision strategy in treating PJI of the hip.

One-stage or two-stage revision surgery for prosthetic hip joint infection--the INFORM trial: a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) affects approximately 1% of patients following total hip replacement (THR) and often results in severe physical and emotional suffering. Current surgical treatment options are debridement, antibiotics and implant retention; revision THR; excision of the joint and amputation. Revision surgery can be done as either a one-stage or two-stage operation. Both types of surgery are well-established practice in the NHS and result in similar rates of re-infection, but little is known about the impact of these treatments from the patient's perspective. The main aim of this randomised controlled trial is to determine whether there is a difference in patient-reported outcome measures 18 months after randomisation for one-stage or two-stage revision surgery. METHODS/DESIGN: INFORM (INFection ORthopaedic Management) is an open, two-arm, multi-centre, randomised, superiority trial. We aim to randomise 148 patients with eligible PJI of the hip from approximately seven secondary care NHS orthopaedic units from across England and Wales. Patients will be randomised via a web-based system to receive either a one-stage revision or a two-stage revision THR. Blinding is not possible due to the nature of the intervention. All patients will be followed up for 18 months. The primary outcome is the WOMAC Index, which assesses hip pain, function and stiffness, collected by questionnaire at 18 months. Secondary outcomes include the following: cost-effectiveness, complications, re-infection rates, objective hip function assessment and quality of life. A nested qualitative study will explore patients' and surgeons' experiences, including their views about trial participation and randomisation. DISCUSSION: INFORM is the first ever randomised trial to compare two widely accepted surgical interventions for the treatment of PJI: one-stage and two-stage revision THR. The results of the trial will benefit patients in the future as the main focus is on patient-reported outcomes: pain, function and wellbeing in the long term. Patients state that these outcomes are more important than those that are clinically derived (such as re-infection) and have been commonly used in previous non-randomised studies. Results from the INFORM trial will also benefit clinicians and NHS managers by enabling the comparison of these key interventions in terms of patients' complication rates, health and social resource use and their overall cost-effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current controlled trials ISRCTN10956306 (registered on 29 January 2015); UKCRN ID 18159.

Re-infection outcomes following one- and two-stage surgical revision of infected hip prosthesis in unselected patients: protocol for a systematic review and an individual participant data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Several aggregate published reviews have compared the effectiveness of one- and two-stage surgical revision to prevent re-infection following prosthetic hip infection and have reported inconsistent results. In addition, there were several features of these previous reviews which limited the validity of the findings. In the absence of a well-designed clinical trial, we propose the Global Infection Orthopaedic Management (INFORM) collaboration, a worldwide collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data (IPD) to address the existing uncertainties. METHODS: Cohort studies (prospective or retrospective) and randomised controlled trials conducted in unselected patients with infection treated exclusively by one- or two-stage revision and reporting re-infection outcomes within 2 years of revision will be retrieved by searching the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Reference lists of relevant studies will be manually scanned and there will be email contact with investigators of grey literature and conference abstracts. Investigators will be invited to join the Global INFORM collaboration and share their individual level data. The primary outcome of the analyses will be incidence of re-infection within 2 years of commencement of revision surgery. Primary analyses will be conducted comparing the one-stage to the two-stage surgical revision. IPD analyses will be based on Cox proportional hazard (PH) models estimated for each study separately. Study-specific log hazard ratios will be combined using random-effects meta-analysis with fixed-effects meta-analysis in subsidiary analyses. Hazard ratios for re-infection according to different individual level characteristics such as sex, age groups, body mass index and comorbidities will also be assessed. DISCUSSION: The analyses will enable a consistent approach to the definition of re-infection outcomes, more detailed analyses under a broader range of circumstances and exploration of potential sources of heterogeneity and produce much more valid and precise estimates of re-infection outcomes. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO 2015: CRD42015016664.

Comparison of steady state femoral head penetration rates between two highly cross-linked polyethylenes in total hip arthroplasty.

Given that the manufacture of highly cross-linked polyethylene (HXLPE) is not standardized, the behavior of these materials may vary. Our study compares minimum 5-year steady state femoral head penetration rates using the Martell method, in 2 HXPLEs produced by different manufacturers. Patients received a primary hip arthroplasty using an uncemented acetabular component with an HXLPE liner and a 28-mm femoral head. Forty-seven patients in group A received an HXLPE liner (Reflection XLPE, Smith and Nephew Inc, Memphis, Tenn), and 36 patients in group B received a different HXLPE liner (Longevity, Zimmer Inc, Warsaw, Ind). Average follow-up was 6.42 years in group A and 7.64 years in group B. The steady state head penetration rates were not significantly (P > .05) different between the HXPLE groups over the midterm with 0.026 mm/y and 0.025 mm/y in groups A and B, respectively.

Does bearing design influence midterm survivorship of unicompartmental arthroplasty?

UNLABELLED: Medial unicompartmental arthroplasties (UKA) are available with mobile- and fixed-bearing designs, with the advantages of one bearing over another unproven. We questioned whether the bearing design influenced clinical outcome, survivorship, the reason for revision, or the timing of failures. We retrospectively reviewed 179 patients (229 knees) who had medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasties between 1990 and 2007; of these 79 knees had a mobile-bearing design and 150 knees a fixed-bearing design. Patients with mobile-bearing UKA had a minimum followup of 1 year (mean, 3.6 years; range, 1-11.3 years); those with fixed-bearing UKA a minimum followup of 1 year (mean, 8.1 years; range, 1-17.8 years). Patients were evaluated with clinical outcome scores and radiographically using the Knee Society rating system. Seven of 79 (9%) mobile-bearing knees underwent revision at a mean of 2.6 years, and 22 of 150 (15%) fixed-bearing knees underwent revision at a mean of 6.9 years. The 5-year cumulative survival rates were 88% (SE +/- 0.47, 95% CI 0.7229-1) and 96% (SE +/- 0.16, 95% CI 0.93-0.9979) for the mobile- and fixed-bearing designs respectively using the endpoint of revision surgery. We observed no differences in the indications or complexity of revision surgery between the groups and none in midterm survivorship. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, comparative study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

No difference in gender-specific hip replacement outcomes.

UNLABELLED: Gender-specific total hip arthroplasty (THA) design has been recently debated with manufacturers launching gender-based designs. The purpose of this study was to investigate the survivorship and clinical outcomes of a large primary THA cohort specifically assessing differences between genders in clinical outcomes, implant survivorship, revisions as well as sizing and offset differences. We reviewed 3461 consecutive patients receiving 4114 primary THAs (1924 women, 1537 men) between 1980 and 2004 with a minimum of 2 years followup (mean, 11.33 +/- 6.5 years). A subset of patients with complete implant data was reviewed for sizing and offset differences. Preoperative, latest, and change in clinical outcome scores as well as Kaplan-Meier analysis were performed. Men had higher raw clinical outcome scores preoperatively and postoperatively. Differences in change of clinical outcome scores were found only in the WOMAC pain score in favor of the female cohort (39.4 versus 36.1). Survivorship and revision rate were not significantly different. Men used larger stems with greater stem lengths, neck offset, and neck lengths. Current implant systems were sufficiently versatile to address the different size and offset needs of male and female patients. These data suggest there is no apparent need for a gender-designed THA system. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, prognostic study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.