Collared Cementless Femoral Components Reduce the Revision Rates in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty Using the Direct Anterior Approach: An Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry Study.

BACKGROUND: An increased risk of periprosthetic fracture and aseptic loosening is reported when the direct anterior approach (DAA) is used for total hip arthroplasty (THA), especially with cementless implants. We assessed the rate of revision comparing collared and collarless femoral stems when using the DAA for THA. METHODS: We used data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry for primary THA for osteoarthritis inserted with the DAA between January 2015 and December 2022. There were 48,567 THAs that used the DAA (26,690 collarless cementless, 10,161 collared cementless, and 11,716 cemented). Cumulative percent revision was calculated for all-cause revision, revision for periprosthetic femoral fractures, and aseptic femoral stem loosening. Cox proportional hazard ratios [HRs] were used to compare the revision of collared and collarless cementless stems. We also compared collared cementless stems and cemented stems. RESULTS: A higher rate of all-cause revision within 3 months of surgery was observed with collarless compared to collared cementless implants (HR: 1.99 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.56 to 2.54]; P < .001). Similarly, collarless cementless implants were associated with a greater rate of revision for fracture in the first 6 months (HR: 2.90 [95% CI, 1.89 to 4.45]; P < .001) and after 6 months (HR 10.04 [95% CI 1.38 to 73.21]; P = .02), as well as an increased rate of revision for aseptic loosening after 2 years (HR: 5.76 [95% CI, 1.81 to 18.28], P = .003). Collared cementless and cemented stems performed similarly. CONCLUSION: Collared stems were associated with a reduced rate of all-cause revision for cementless THA performed via the DAA. The reduction in risk may be due to protection from periprosthetic femoral fracture and aseptic loosening.

Registry-based study of survivorship of cemented femoral components versus collared cementless femoral components in total hip arthroplasty in older patients with osteoarthritis.

Aims: In recent years, the use of a collared cementless femoral prosthesis has risen in popularity. The design intention of collared components is to transfer some load to the resected femoral calcar and prevent implant subsidence within the cancellous bone of the metaphysis. Conversely, the load transfer for a cemented femoral prosthesis depends on the cement-component and cement-bone interface interaction. The aim of our study was to compare the three most commonly used collared cementless components and the three most commonly used tapered polished cemented components in patients aged ≥ 75 years who have undergone a primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) for osteoarthritis (OA). Methods: Data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry from 1 September 1999 to 31 December 2022 were analyzed. Collared cementless femoral components and cemented components were identified, and the three most commonly used components in each group were analyzed. We identified a total of 11,278 collared cementless components and 47,835 cemented components. Hazard ratios (HRs) from Cox proportional hazards models, adjusting for age and sex, were obtained to compare the revision rates between the groups. Results: From six months postoperatively onwards, patients aged ≥ 75 years undergoing primary THA with primary diagnosis of OA have a lower risk of all-cause revision with collared cementless components than with a polished tapered cemented component (HR 0.78 (95% confidence interval 0.64 to 0.96); p = 0.018). There is no difference in revision rate prior to six months. Conclusion: Patients aged ≥ 75 years with a primary diagnosis of OA have a significantly lower rate of revision with the most common collared cementless femoral component, compared with the most common polished tapered cemented components from six months postoperatively onwards. The lower revision rate is largely due to a reduction in revisions for fracture and infection.

Increased Rates of Late Periprosthetic Fractures in Larger Hydroxyapatite-Coated Cementless Stems: Are Collared Stems a Better Alternative for Total Hip Arthroplasty?

BACKGROUND: Cementless hip stems are widely used for total hip arthroplasty (THA) and have demonstrated excellent survivorship. This study aimed to investigate the effects of stem size and calcar collars on rates of revision due to periprosthetic fracture. METHODS: All primary THA procedures recorded by the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) from September 1999 to December 2021 for a diagnosis of osteoarthritis using a single cementless hip stem with modern bearings were included. The primary outcome measure was revision due to periprosthetic fracture. Stems were divided into 2 groups for comparison, large (size 14 to 20) and small-medium (6 to 13). A subanalysis was performed for collared stems. A total of 59,518 primary THA procedures were included. RESULTS: The cumulative percent revision for periprosthetic fracture was significantly higher for large stems compared to small-medium stems (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.57 [95% confidence interval {CI} 1.18, 2.09] P = .002). Furthermore, collared stems had significantly lower revision rates due to late periprosthetic fracture compared to collarless variants (2 week + HR = 4.55 [95% CI 3.23, 6.42], P < .001). Large collarless stems were found to have greater revision rates due to fracture compared to small-medium collarless stems (HR = 1.55 [95% CI 1.13, 2.12] P = .006), but no difference was found between collared groups (HR = 1.37 [95% CI 0.68, 2.78] P = .382). CONCLUSION: Large cementless hip stems have a higher rate of revision due to periprosthetic fracture compared to small-medium stems. Using a collared stem reduces the rate of periprosthetic fracture.

Primary inlay reverse shoulder arthroplasty has a higher rate of revision than onlay reverse shoulder arthroplasty: Analysis from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry.

Background: Two classes of primary reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA), inlay (in-rTSA), and onlay (on-rTSA) were compared to determine differences in rates of revision. Methods: Between 1 January 2012 and 31 December 2020, all primary in-rTSA or on-rTSA procedures were compared from a large national arthroplasty registry by cumulative percentage revision (CPR). Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship and hazard ratios from Cox proportional hazard models adjusted for age, gender, glenosphere size, and humeral fixation determined any associations to the risk of revision. Results: Of the 14,807 in-rTSA and 6590 on-rTSA procedures, the CPR at seven years was 4.9%. There was an increased risk of revision for in-rTSA vs on-rTSA (p = 0.039) when adjusted for age, gender, glenosphere size, and humeral fixation. Glenosphere size <38 mm adjusted for age and gender (p = 0.016) increased the revision risk. Revision for instability/dislocation occurred more often for in-rTSA vs on-rTSA (p < 0.001) in the first three months. Males had a higher rate of revision than females for in-rTSA (3months+, p = 0.001) and for on-rTSA (p < 0.001). Discussion: Care should be taken when considering in-rTSA particularly in males, and if preoperative planning suggests a small (<38 mm) glenosphere. Level of evidence: Level III, therapeutic study. Original article.

Short-stem hip arthroplasty in Australia and the Netherlands: a comparison of 12,680 cases between the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) and the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI).

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: We compared the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) and the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI) regarding patient, prosthesis, and procedure characteristics as well as revision rates for uncemented short-stem total hip arthroplasties (THAs). PATIENTS AND METHODS: All THAs with an uncemented short-stemmed femoral component performed between 2009 and 2021 were included from the AOANJRR (n = 9,328) and the LROI (n = 3,352). Kaplan-Meier survival analyses and multivariable Schemper's weighted Cox regression analyses with data from 2009-2021 and 2015-2021 were performed with overall revision as endpoint. RESULTS: In Australia, the proportion of male patients (51% vs. 40%), patients with ASA III-IV score (30% vs. 3.7%), BMI ≥ 30.0 (39% vs. 19%), and femoral heads of 36 mm (58% vs. 20%) were higher than in the Netherlands. Short-stem THAs in Australia and the Netherlands had comparable 10-year revision rates (3.4%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.9-4.0 vs. 4.8%, CI 3.7-6.3). Multivariable Cox regression analyses with data from 2009-2021 showed a higher risk for revision of short-stem THAs performed in the Netherlands (HR 1.8, CI 1.1-2.8), whereas the risk for revision was comparable (HR 0.9, CI 0.5-1.7) when adjusted for more potential confounders using data from 2015-2021. CONCLUSION: Short-stem THAs in Australia and the Netherlands have similar crude and adjusted revision rates, which are acceptable at 10 years of follow-up.

Survivorship of shoulder arthroplasty in young patients with osteoarthritis: an analysis of the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of shoulder osteoarthritis in the young patient remains challenging. The higher functional demands and higher expectations of the young patient cohort are often coupled with increased failure and revision rates. Consequently, shoulder surgeons are faced with a unique challenge with implant selection. The aim of this study was to compare the survivorship and reasons for revision of 5 classes of shoulder arthroplasty in patients aged <55 years with a primary diagnosis of osteoarthritis by use of data from a large national arthroplasty registry. METHODS: The study population included all primary shoulder arthroplasty procedures undertaken for osteoarthritis in patients aged <55 years and reported to the registry between September 1999 and December 2021. Procedures were grouped into the following classes: total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA), hemiarthroplasty resurfacing (HRA), hemiarthroplasty stemmed metallic head (HSMH), hemiarthroplasty stemmed pyrocarbon head (HSPH), and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA). The outcome measure was the cumulative percent revision, which was defined using Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship to describe the time to the first revision. Hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated from Cox proportional hazards models, adjusting for age and sex, to compare revision rates among groups. RESULTS: There were 1564 shoulder arthroplasty procedures in patients aged <55 years, of which 361 (23.1%) were HRA, 70 (4.5%) were HSMH, 159 (10.2%) were HSPH, 714 (45.7%) were TSA, and 260 (16.6%) were RTSA. HRA had a higher rate of revision than RTSA after 1 year (HRA = 2.51 (95% CI 1.30, 4.83), P = .005), with no difference prior to that time. In addition, HSMH had a higher rate of revision than RTSA for the entire period (HR, 2.69 [95% confidence interval, 1.28-5.63], P = .008). There was no significant difference in the rate of revision for HSPH and TSA when they were compared with RTSA. Glenoid erosion was the most common cause of revision for HRA (28.6% of revisions) and HSMH (50%). Instability/dislocation was the leading cause of revision for RTSA (41.7%) and HSPH (28.6%), and for TSA, the majority of revisions were for either instability/dislocation (20.6%) or loosening (18.6%). CONCLUSION: These results should be interpreted within the context of the lack of availability of long-term data on RTSA and HSPH stems. RTSA outperforms all implants regarding revision rates at mid-term follow-up. The high early dislocation rate associated with RTSA, as well as the lack of revision options available to address this, indicates that careful selection of patients and a greater appreciation of anatomic risk factors are needed in the future.

The association between body mass index and patient-reported outcome measures before and after primary total hip or knee arthroplasty: a registry.

BACKGROUND: The objective is to determine whether body mass index is associated with patient-reported expectations and well-being before primary total hip or total knee arthroplasty, and patient-reported outcomes 6 months after surgery. METHODS: Data were obtained from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. Outcome measures included pre-operative expectations for post-operative mobility, joint pain and health, pre- and post-operative EQ-5D-5L, EQ-VAS, Oxford Hip/Knee Scores and joint pain scales, and post-operative perceived change and perceived satisfaction. Associations with BMI were assessed using chi-square tests, analysis of variance and Linear Mixed Models equations. RESULTS: Data were available for 12 816 primary THA patients and 20 253 primary TKA patients. Pre-operatively, patients in higher BMI categories were significantly more likely to expect ongoing problems with mobility, more joint pain and poorer health following surgery (P<0.01 for all analyses). For arthroplasty patients, higher BMI was associated with poorer pre-operative and post-operative scores for all measures. BMI was positively associated with improvements in EQ-5D, OHS/KS and joint pain. While between-group differences were statistically significant, many were small in magnitude. There was no association between BMI and patient-perceived change or satisfaction after arthroplasty. CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing THA/TKA, higher BMI was associated with lower pre-operative expectations, poorer well-being before surgery, and worse scores after surgery. Patients who were obese demonstrated comparable satisfaction with their operated joint, compared with non-obese patients. BMI was associated with greater pre- to post-operative improvements in outcome scores for EQ-5D, VAS knee, OHS/OKS and joint pain but these differences may not be clinically important.

Corrigendum to "Early Revision Rates of Total Hip Arthroplasty Using the Intellijoint HIP Computer Navigation System: A Study From the Australian National Joint Replacement Registry of 1911 Procedures." [Arthroplasty Today 18 (2022) 149-156].

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1016/j.artd.2022.09.019.].

Early Revision Rates of Total Hip Arthroplasty Using the Intellijoint HIP Computer Navigation System: A Study From the Australian National Joint Replacement Registry of 1911 Procedures.

Background: Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is an effective treatment for symptomatic hip osteoarthritis. The aim of this study was to determine the revision outcome of commercially available navigation technologies. Methods: Data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry from January 2016 to December 2020 included all primary THA procedures performed for osteoarthritis. Procedures using the Intellijoint HIP navigation system were identified and compared to procedures using "other" computer navigation systems and to nonnavigated procedures. The cumulative percent revision (CPR) was compared between the 3 groups using Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship and hazard ratios from Cox proportional hazards models, adjusted for age and gender. Results: There were 1911 procedures that used the Intellijoint system, 4081 used "other" computer navigation systems, and 160,661 were nonnavigated procedures. The all-cause 2-year CPR rate for the Intellijoint system was 1.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-2.6), compared to 2.2% (95% CI, 1.8-2.8) for other navigated cases and 2.2% (95% CI, 2.1-2.3) for nonnavigated cases. A prosthesis analysis identified the Paragon/Acetabular Shell THAs combined with the Intellijoint system to have a higher (3.4%) rate of revision than nonnavigated THAs (hazard ratio = 2.00 [95% CI, 1.01-4.00], P = .048). When this combination was excluded, the Intellijoint group demonstrated a 2-year CPR of 1.3%. There was no statistical difference in the CPR between the 3 groups before or after excluding the Paragon/Acetabular Shell system. Conclusions: The preliminary data presented demonstrate no statistical difference in all-cause revision rates when comparing the Intellijoint system with "other" navigation systems and "nonnavigated" approaches for primary THAs. Level of evidence: III (National registry analysis).

Distal femoral arthroplasty for native knee fractures : results from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to investigate the rate of revision for distal femoral arthroplasty (DFA) performed as a primary procedure for native knee fractures using data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Arthroplasty Registry (AOANJRR). METHODS: Data from the AOANJRR were obtained for DFA performed as primary procedures for native knee fractures from 1 September 1999 to 31 December 2020. Pathological fractures and revision for failed internal fixation were excluded. The five prostheses identified were the Global Modular Arthroplasty System, the Modular Arthroplasty System, the Modular Universal Tumour And Revision System, the Orthopaedic Salvage System, and the Segmental System. Patient demographic data (age, sex, and American Society of Anesthesiologists grade) were obtained, where available. Kaplan-Meier estimates of survival were used to determine the rate of revision, and the reasons for revision and mortality data were examined. RESULTS: The AOANJRR identified 153 primary DFAs performed for native knee fractures in 151 patients during the study period, with 63.3% of these (n = 97) performed within the last five years. The median follow-up was 2.1 years (interquartile range 0.8 to 4.4). The patient population was 84.8% female (n = 128), with a mean age of 76.1 years (SD 11.9). The cumulative percent revision rate at three years was 10%. The most common reason for revision was loosening, followed by infection. Patient survival at one year was 87.5%, decreasing to 72.8% at three years postoperatively. CONCLUSION: The use of DFA to treat native knee fractures is increasing, with 63.3% of cases performed within the last five years. While long-term data are not available, the results of this study suggest that DFA may be a reasonable option for elderly patients with native knee fractures where fixation is not feasible, or for whom prolonged non-weightbearing may be detrimental. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(7):894-901.

Reduced Revision Rates in Total Shoulder Arthroplasty With Crosslinked Polyethylene: Results From the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry.

BACKGROUND: Loss of glenoid fixation is a key factor affecting the survivorship of primary total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). It is not known whether the lower revision rates associated with crosslinked polyethylene (XLPE) compared with those of non-XLPE identified in hip and knee arthroplasty apply to shoulder arthroplasty. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We used data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) to compare the revision rates of primary stemmed anatomic TSA using XLPE to procedures using non-XLPE. In patients receiving a primary stemmed anatomic TSA for osteoarthritis, we asked: (1) Does the rate of revision or reason for revision vary between XLPE and non-XLPE all-polyethylene glenoid components? (2) Is there any difference in the revision rate when XLPE is compared with non-XLPE across varying head sizes? (3) Is there any difference in survival among prosthesis combinations with all-polyethylene glenoid components when they are used with XLPE compared with non-XLPE? METHODS: Data were extracted from the AOANJRR from April 16, 2004, to December 31, 2020. The AOANJRR collects data on more than 97% of joint replacements performed in Australia. The study population included all primary, stemmed, anatomic TSA procedures performed for osteoarthritis using all-polyethylene glenoid components. Procedures were grouped into XLPE and non-XLPE bearing surfaces for comparison. Of the 10,102 primary stemmed anatomic TSAs in the analysis, 39% (3942 of 10,102) used XLPE and 61% (6160 of 10,102) used non-XLPE. There were no differences in age, gender, or follow-up between groups. Revision rates were determined using Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship to describe the time to the first revision, with censoring at the time of death or closure of the database at the time of analysis. Revision was defined as removal, replacement, or addition of any component of a joint replacement. The unadjusted cumulative percent revision after the primary arthroplasty (with 95% confidence intervals [CIs]) was calculated and compared using Cox proportional hazard models adjusted for age, gender, fixation, and surgeon volume. Further analyses were performed stratifying according to humeral head size, and a prosthesis-specific analysis adjusted for age and gender was also performed. This analysis was restricted to prosthesis combinations that were used at least 150 times, accounted for at least four revisions, had XLPE and non-XLPE options available, and had a minimum of 3 years of follow-up. RESULTS: Non - XLPE had a higher risk of revision than XLPE after 1.5 years (HR 2.3 [95% CI 1.6 to 3.1]; p < 0.001). The cumulative percent revision at 12 years was 5% (95% CI 4% to 6%) for XLPE and 9% (95% CI 8% to 10%) for non-XLPE. There was no difference in the rate of revision for head sizes smaller than 44 mm. Non-XLPE had a higher rate of revision than XLPE for head sizes 44 to 50 mm after 2 years (HR 2.3 [95% CI 1.5 to 3.6]; p < 0.001) and for heads larger than 50 mm for the entire period (HR 2.2 [95% CI 1.4 to 3.6]; p < 0.001). Two prosthesis combinations fulfilled the inclusion criteria for the prosthesis-specific analysis. One had a higher risk of revision when used with non-XLPE compared with XLPE after 1.5 years (HR 3.7 [95% CI 2.2 to 6.3]; p < 0.001). For the second prosthesis combination, no difference was found in the rate of revision between the two groups. CONCLUSION: These AOANJRR data demonstrate that noncrosslinked, all-polyethylene glenoid components have a higher revision rate compared with crosslinked, all-polyethylene glenoid components when used in stemmed anatomic TSA for osteoarthritis. As polyethylene type is likely an important determinant of revision risk, crosslinked polyethylene should be used when available, particularly for head sizes larger than 44 mm. Further studies will need to be undertaken after larger numbers of shoulder arthroplasties have been performed to determine whether this reduction in revision risk associated with XLPE bears true for all TSA designs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Between-hospital and between-surgeon variation in thresholds for hip and knee replacement.

BACKGROUND: Total hip replacement (THR) and total knee replacement (TKR) are cost-effective interventions to reduce pain and disability associated with osteoarthritis, however there is no clear guidelines available to determine appropriate patient selection and the timing of surgery. This prospective cohort study aimed to evaluate the hospital- and surgeon-level variation in the severity of patient-reported symptoms prior to THR and TKR. METHODS: Patients undergoing primary THR (n = 4330) or TKR (n = 7054) for osteoarthritis who participated in a national registry-led Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) pilot program were included in the analysis. Pre-operative Oxford Hip Score (OHS) and Oxford Knee Score (OKS) (range 0-48; representing worst to best hip/knee pain and function) data were examined for variation between private and public hospitals and between surgeons using linear mixed models. RESULTS: Pre-operative mean OHS was significantly higher (better) in patients whose surgery was performed in a private hospital compared to public hospitals; 21.39 versus 18.11 (mean difference 3.27, 95% CI 1.75, 4.79). For OKS, the difference between private hospital and public hospital scores was dependent on BMI and gender. Most of the variation in pre-operative OHS and OKS was not at the individual hospital- or surgeon-level, which explained only a negligible proportion of the model variance (⟨5%) for THR and TKR. CONCLUSION: Apart from a difference between private and public hospitals, there was little between-hospital or between-surgeon symptom variation in joint-specific pain and function prior to THR or TKR. The findings suggest consistency in the surgical thresholds for patients being offered hip and knee joint replacement procedures.

A Comparison of Revision Rates and Dislocation After Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty with 28, 32, and 36-mm Femoral Heads and Different Cup Sizes: An Analysis of 188,591 Primary Total Hip Arthroplasties.

UPDATE: This article was updated on August 17, 2022, because of previous errors, which were discovered after the preliminary version of the article was posted online. On page 1462, in the first sentence of the Abstract section entitled "Results," the phrase that had read "and 36-mm heads had fewer dislocations than 28-mm (HR = 0.33 [95% CI, 0.16 to 0.68]; p = 0.003), but more dislocations than 32-mm heads (HR for >2 weeks = 2.25 [95% CI, 1.13 to 4.49]; p = 0.021)" now reads "and 36-mm heads had fewer dislocations than 28-mm (HR = 0.33 [95% CI, 0.16 to 0.68]; p = 0.003) and 32-mm heads (HR for ≥2 weeks = 0.44 [95% CI, 0.22 to 0.88]; p = 0.021)." On page 1468, in the last sentence of the section entitled "Acetabular Components with a Diameter of <51 mm," the phrase that had read "and HR for ≥2 weeks = 2.25 [95% CI, 1.13 to 4.49; p = 0.021]) ( Fig. 3 )" now reads "and HR for ≥2 weeks = 0.44 [95% CI, 0.22 to 0.88; p = 0.021]) ( Fig. 3 )." Finally, on page 1466, in the upper right corner of Figure 3 , under "32mm vs 36mm," the second line that had read "2Wks+: HR=2.25 (1.13, 4.49), p=0.021" now reads "2Wks+: HR=0.44 (0.22, 0.88), p= 0.021."

The acetabular component diameter can influence the choice of femoral head size in total hip arthroplasty (THA). We compared the rates of revision by femoral head size for different acetabular component sizes. Data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry were analyzed for patients undergoing primary THA for a diagnosis of osteoarthritis from September 1999 to December 2019. Acetabular components were stratified into quartiles by size: <51 mm, 51 to 53 mm, 54 to 55 mm, and 56 to 66 mm. Femoral head sizes of 28 mm, 32 mm, and 36 mm were compared for each cup size. The primary outcome was the cumulative percent revision (CPR) for all aseptic causes and for dislocation. The results were adjusted for age, sex, femoral fixation, femoral head material, year of surgery, and surgical approach and were stratified by femoral head material. For acetabular components of <51 mm, 32-mm (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.75 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.57 to 0.97]; p = 0.031) and 36-mm femoral heads (HR = 0.58 [95% CI, 0.38 to 0.87]; p = 0.008) had a lower CPR for aseptic causes than 28-mm heads; and 36-mm heads had fewer dislocations than 28-mm (HR = 0.33 [95% CI, 0.16 to 0.68]; p = 0.003), and 32-mm heads (HR for ≥2 weeks = 0.44 [95% CI, 0.22 to 0.88]; p = 0.021). For 51 to 53-mm, 54 to 55-mm, and 56 to 66-mm-diameter acetabular components, there was no difference in the CPR for aseptic causes among head sizes. A femoral head size of 36 mm had fewer dislocations in the first 2 weeks than a 32-mm head for the 51 to 53-mm acetabular components (HR for <2 weeks = 3.79 [95% CI, 1.23 to 11.67]; p = 0.020) and for the entire period for 56 to 66-mm acetabular components (HR = 1.53 [95% CI, 1.05 to 2.23]; p = 0.028). The reasons for revision differed for each femoral head size. There was no difference in the CPR between metal and ceramic heads. There is no clear advantage to any single head size except with acetabular components of <51 mm, in which 32-mm and 36-mm femoral heads had lower rates of aseptic revision. If stability is prioritized, 36-mm femoral heads may be indicated. Therapeutic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

No Difference in Revision Rate Between Low Viscosity and High Viscosity Cement Used in Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Loosening remains one of the most common reasons for revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Cement viscosity has a potential role in reducing revision rates for loosening. The aim of this study was to assess the outcome for loosening of the 5 most used cemented knee prostheses by constraint type, based on the cement viscosity type used. METHODS: There were 214,708 TKA procedures performed between 1999 and 2020 for a diagnosis of osteoarthritis using the 5 most commonly used minimally stabilized, posterior stabilized, and medial pivot design cemented tibial components. Only procedures with a cemented tibial component were included. Outcomes for two different cement viscosities, 140,060 high viscosity and 74,648 low viscosity cement, were compared for each fixation type within each of the three stability groups. RESULTS: There was no difference in a risk of all-cause revision when high viscosity cement was used compared to low viscosity cement for minimally stabilized prostheses (hazards ratio [HR] 1.07 [95% CI 0.99-1.15], P = .09), posterior stabilized prostheses (HR 1.03 [95% CI 0.95-1.11], P = .53), and medial pivot design prostheses (HR 1.06 [95% CI 0.80-1.41], P = .67). No difference was observed between cement viscosity types for any of the prosthesis constraint types when aseptic loosening was assessed. CONCLUSIONS: We found no difference in the risk of revision for any reason, or for loosening, with cement viscosity for the most commonly used minimally stabilized, posterior stabilized, and medial pivot TKA. The role of cement viscosity in the risk of TKA revision remains unclear and further research is required. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III Retrospective comparative study.

Distal Femoral Replacement for Periprosthetic Fractures After TKA: Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry Review.

BACKGROUND: Distal femoral replacement (DFR) is a potential treatment option following periprosthetic fracture (PPF) of a total knee arthroplasty (TKA). However, there is limited literature regarding implant survivorship and complication rates. The aim of this study was to examine patient demographics and trends in usage, implant survivorship and modes of failure, and patient mortality following DFR for PPF captured by a national joint replacement registry. METHODS: A retrospective registry review was performed using data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR). In total, 306 DFR were performed for PPF of a known primary TKA. Eighty-five percent of patients were female, and the mean age was 76.4 years. Kaplan-Meier estimates of implant and patient survivorship were performed. RESULTS: The number of DFR performed for PPF has doubled over the past five years. The cumulative percent second revision rate at six years was 12%. The most common indications for revision were infection (37%) and aseptic loosening (33%). Patient survivorship after DFR was 97% and 83% at five and ten years, respectively. CONCLUSION: A national registry review has identified the increasing prevalence of DFR for PPF after primary TKA and demonstrated implant survivorship of 88% at midterm follow-up. Surgeons may consider DFR as an acceptable and durable treatment option. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III - Case Series.

Cemented Polished Tapered Stems Have Lower Revision Rates Than Commonly Used Cementless Implant up to 17 Years of Follow-Up: An Analysis of 201,889 Total Hip Replacements From the Australian Orthopedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry.

BACKGROUND: Data assessing femoral stems may be influenced by grouping together matt and polished stems, despite their differing reported survivorship. The aim of this study is to assess the difference in revision rates between commonly used cemented and cementless stems when polished tapered stems are assessed independently of matt stems. METHODS: Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry data from 1999 to 2019 were used to assess difference in revision rates between the 5 most commonly implanted femoral cemented and cementless stems for osteoarthritis. Cemented matt femoral stems, stems using line-to-line cementing techniques and procedures using non-cross-linked polyethylene, large head (>32 mm) metal-on-metal bearing surfaces or exchangeable necks were excluded. Cumulative percent revision was used to help compare survivorship between stems. RESULTS: There were 201,889 total hip replacements meeting the inclusion criteria, of which 50.0% were cemented and 50.0% cementless. Cemented stems had a lower rate of revision at all time points compared to cementless stems. This was most significant during the first 2 weeks (hazard ratio 0.48, 95% confidence interval 0.40-0.58, P < .001) compared to 2 weeks postoperatively and onwards (hazard ratio 0.85, 95% confidence interval 0.81-0.90, P < .001). A subanalysis of head size, bearing type, and surgeon volume further supported the use of a cemented stem. CONCLUSION: Commonly used cemented polished tapered stems have a lower revision rate when compared to commonly used cementless prostheses, and are recommended in all age groups for both low-volume and high-volume surgeons especially when head size 32 mm or smaller is used.

Survivorship Comparisons of Ultracongruent, Cruciate-Retaining and Posterior-Stabilized Tibial Inserts Using a Single Knee System Design: Results From the Australian Orthopedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry.

BACKGROUND: Ultracongruent (UC) tibial inserts can increase knee replacement stability, but how survivorship compares to cruciate retaining (CR) or posterior stabilized (PS) inserts is unclear. METHODS: Data from a large joint registry were used to calculate the cumulative percent revision of a single popular knee design used with different inserts. There were 67,523 procedures, of which 12,434 were UC, 21,635 CR, and 33,454 PS. Revision rates and reasons for revision were analyzed. RESULTS: The cumulative percent revision at 18 years was 8.3% for UC, 9.2% for CR, and 8.9% for PS. There was no difference when UC was compared to CR, but PS had a higher risk of revision. Revision reasons were similar. CONCLUSION: Compared to the CR, an UC insert did not increase revision rates and was actually lower than a PS insert. An UC insert does not compromise long-term total knee arthroplasty survivorship in the Genesis II prosthesis.

Revision for Aseptic Loosening of Highly Porous Acetabular Components in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty: An Analysis of 20,993 Total Hip Replacements.

BACKGROUND: Highly porous-coated titanium acetabular components have a high coefficient of friction and ultraporous surfaces to enhance bone ingrowth and osseointegration in total hip arthroplasty (THA). There have been concerns with the development of early radiolucent lines and aseptic loosening of highly porous acetabular components. It is unclear whether these concerns relate to a specific implant or the entire class. The aim of this study is to compare the revision rates for aseptic loosening of highly porous acetabular combinations in primary THA using data from a large joint replacement registry. METHODS: Data were retrieved from the Australian Orthopedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry for the study period September 1999 to December 2019. All primary THA procedures recorded and performed for osteoarthritis using the most common combinations for each highly porous acetabular component with highly cross-linked polyethylene and a 32-mm or 36-mm femoral head were included. The primary outcome measure was revision for aseptic loosening of the acetabular component. Results were adjusted for patient age and gender. RESULTS: There were 20,993 primary THA procedures performed for osteoarthritis using a highly porous acetabular component across 6 combinations. Relative to the POLARSTEM/R3 (StikTite), the Exeter V40/Tritanium had a significantly higher risk of revision for aseptic loosening of the acetabular component (hazard ratio 0.21, 95% confidence interval 0.06-0.74, P = .014). There was no difference between any other highly porous acetabular component combination and no late revisions for aseptic loosening. CONCLUSION: Highly porous-coated titanium acetabular components have low rates of aseptic loosening with long-term follow-up. A difference between components may exist. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.