2019 Mark Coventry Award: A multicentre randomized clinical trial of tranexamic acid in revision total knee arthroplasty: does the dosing regimen matter?.

AIMS: Tranexamic acid (TXA) is proven to reduce blood loss following total knee arthroplasty (TKA), but there are limited data on the impact of similar dosing regimens in revision TKA. The purpose of this multicentre randomized clinical trial was to determine the optimal regimen to maximize the blood-sparing properties of TXA in revision TKA. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From six-centres, 233 revision TKAs were randomized to one of four regimens: 1 g of intravenous (IV) TXA given prior to the skin incision, a double-dose regimen of 1 g IV TXA given both prior to skin incision and at time of wound closure, a combination of 1 g IV TXA given prior to skin incision and 1 g of intraoperative topical TXA, or three doses of 1950 mg oral TXA given two hours preoperatively, six hours postoperatively, and on the morning of postoperative day one. Randomization was performed based on the type of revision procedure to ensure equivalent distribution among groups. Power analysis determined that 40 patients per group were necessary to identify a 1 g/dl difference in the reduction of haemoglobin postoperatively between groups with an alpha of 0.05 and power of 0.80. Per-protocol analysis involved regression analysis and two one-sided t-tests for equivalence. RESULTS: In total, one patient withdrew, five did not undergo surgery, 16 were screening failures, and 25 did not receive the assigned treatment, leaving 186 patients for analysis. There was no significant difference in haemoglobin reduction among treatments (2.8 g/dl for single-dose IV TXA, 2.6 g/dl for double-dose IV TXA, 2.6 g/dl for combined IV/topical TXA, 2.9 g/dl for oral TXA; p = 0.38). Similarly, calculated blood loss (p = 0.65) and transfusion rates (p = 0.95) were not significantly different between groups. Equivalence testing assuming a 1 g/dl difference in haemoglobin change as clinically relevant showed that all possible pairings were statistically equivalent. CONCLUSION: Despite the higher risk of blood loss in revision TKA, all TXA regimens tested had equivalent blood-sparing properties. Surgeons should consider using the lowest effective dose and least costly TXA regimen in revision TKA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B(Supple 7):10-16.

Can the use of an inclinometer improve the positioning of the acetabular component in total hip arthroplasty?

Aims: Accurate placement of the acetabular component is essential in total hip arthroplasty (THA). The purpose of this study was to determine if the ability to achieve inclination of the acetabular component within the 'safe-zone' of 30° to 50° could be improved with the use of an inclinometer. Patients and Methods: We reviewed 167 primary THAs performed by a single surgeon over a period of 14 months. Procedures were performed at two institutions: an inpatient hospital, where an inclinometer was used (inclinometer group); and an ambulatory centre, where an inclinometer was not used as it could not be adequately sterilized (control group). We excluded 47 patients with a body mass index (BMI) of > 40 kg/m2, age of > 68 years, or a surgical indication other than osteoarthritis whose treatment could not be undertaken in the ambulatory centre. There were thus 120 patients in the study, 68 in the inclinometer group and 52 in the control group. The inclination angles of the acetabular component were measured from de-identified plain radiographs by two blinded investigators who were not involved in the surgery. The effect of the use of the inclinometer on the inclination angle was determined using multivariate regression analysis. Results: The mean inclination angle for the THAs in the inclinometer group was 42.9° (95% confidence interval (CI) 41.7° to 44.0°; range 29.0° to 63.8°) and 46.5° (95% CI 45.2° to 47.7°; range 32.8° to 63.2°) in the control group (p < 0.001). Regression analysis identified a 9.1% difference in inclination due to the use of an inclinometer (p < 0.001), and THAs performed without the inclinometer were three times more likely to result in inclination angles of > 50° (odds ratio (OR) 2.8, p = 0.036). The correlation coefficient for the interobserver reliability of the measurement of the two investigators was 0.95 (95% CI 0.93 to 0.97). Conclusion: The use of a simple inclinometer resulted in a significant reduction in the number of outliers compared with a freehand technique. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:862-6.

Outcomes of dual mobility components in total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review of the literature.

AIMS: Instability remains a challenging problem in both primary and revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). Dual mobility components confer increased stability, but there are concerns about the unique complications associated with these designs, as well as the long-term survivorship. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a systematic review of all English language articles dealing with dual mobility THAs published between 2007 and 2016 in the MEDLINE and Embase electronic databases. A total of 54 articles met inclusion criteria for the final analysis of primary and revision dual mobility THAs and dual mobility THAs used in the treatment of fractures of the femoral neck. We analysed the survivorship and rates of aseptic loosening and of intraprosthetic and extra-articular dislocation. RESULTS: For the 10 783 primary dual mobility THAs, the incidence of aseptic loosening was 1.3% (142 hips); the rate of intraprosthetic dislocation was 1.1% (122 hips) and the incidence of extra-articular dislocation was 0.46% (41 hips). The overall survivorship of the acetabular component and the dual mobility components was 98.0%, with all-cause revision as the endpoint at a mean follow-up of 8.5 years (2 to 16.5). For the 3008 revision dual mobility THAs, the rate of aseptic acetabular loosening was 1.4% (29 hips); the rate of intraprosthetic dislocation was 0.3% (eight hips) and the rate of extra-articular dislocation was 2.2% (67 hips). The survivorship of the acatabular and dual mobility components was 96.6% at a mean of 5.4 years (2 to 8). For the 554 dual mobility THAs which were undertaken in patients with a fracture of the femoral neck, the rate of intraprosthetic dislocation was 0.18% (one hip), the rate of extra-articular dislocation was 2.3% (13 hips) and there was one aseptic loosening. The survivorship was 97.8% at a mean of 1.3 years (0.75 to 2). CONCLUSION: Dual mobility articulations are a viable alternative to traditional bearing surfaces, with low rates of instability and good overall survivorship in primary and revision THAs, and in those undertaken in patients with a fracture of the femoral neck. The incidence of intraprosthetic dislocation is low and limited mainly to earlier designs. High-quality, prospective, comparative studies are needed to evaluate further the use of dual mobility components in THA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:11-19.

Do higher-volume hospitals provide better value in revision hip and knee arthroplasty?

AIMS: The purpose of this study is to determine if higher volume hospitals have lower costs in revision hip and knee arthroplasty. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We questioned the Centres for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Inpatient Charge Data and identified 789 hospitals performing a total of 29 580 revision arthroplasties in 2014. Centres were dichotomised into high-volume (performing over 50 revision cases per year) and low-volume. Mean total hospital-specific charges and inpatient payments were obtained from the database and stratified based on Diagnosis Related Group (DRG) codes. Patient satisfaction scores were obtained from the multiyear CMS Hospital Compare database. RESULTS: High-volume hospitals comprised 178 (30%) of the total but performed 15 068 (51%) of all revision cases, including 509 of 522 (98%) of the most complex DRG 466 cases. While high-volume hospitals had higher Medicare inpatient payments for DRG 467 ($21 458 versus $20 632, p = 0.038) and DRG 468 ($17 003 versus $16 120, p = 0.011), there was no difference in hospital specific charges between the groups. Higher-volume facilities had a better CMS hospital star rating (3.63 versus 3.35, p < 0.001). When controlling for hospital geographic and demographic factors, high-volume revision hospitals are less likely to be in the upper quartile of inpatient Medicare costs for DRG 467 (odds ratio (OR) 0.593, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.374 to 0.941, p = 0.026) and DRG 468 (OR 0.451, 95% CI 0.297 to 0.687, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: While a high-volume hospital is less likely to be a high cost outlier, the higher mean Medicare reimbursements at these facilities may be due to increased case complexity. Further study should focus on measures for cost savings in revision total joint arthroplasties. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:1611-17.