Lower Associated Risk of Revision with All-Polyethylene Tibial Components in Total Knee Arthroplasty: An Analysis of the American Joint Replacement Registry.

BACKGROUND: Despite the potential advantage of all-polyethylene tibial components, modular metal-backed component use predominates the market in the United States for total knee arthroplasty (TKA). This is partially driven by concerns about the associated revision risk due to the lack of modularity with all-polyethylene components. This study utilized the American Joint Replacement Registry (AJRR) to compare the associated risk of all-cause revision and revision for infection for all-polyethylene versus modular metal-backed tibial components. METHODS: An analysis of primary TKA cases in patients aged 65 years and older was performed with AJRR data linked to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services data from 2012 to 2019. Analyses compared all-polyethylene to modular metal-backed tibial components. We identified 485,024 primary TKA cases, consisting of 479,465 (98.9%) metal-backed and 5,559 (1.1%) all-polyethylene. Cox proportional hazard regression analyses created hazard ratios (HRs) to evaluate the association of design and the risk of all-cause revision while adjusting for sex, age and the competing risk of mortality. Event-free survival curves evaluate time to revision. RESULTS: The all-polyethylene tibia group demonstrated a decreased risk for all-cause revision (HR = 0.37, 95% CI [confidence interval]: 0.24 to 0.55, P < 0.0001) and revision for infection (HR = 0.41, 95% CI: 0.22 to 0.77, P < 0.0001). Event-free survival curves demonstrated a decreased risk of all-cause revision that persisted across time points until 8 years post-TKA. CONCLUSION: In the United States, all-polyethylene tibial component use for TKA remains low compared to modular metal-backed designs. A decreased associated risk for revision should ease concerns about the use of all-polyethylene components in patients aged 65 years or older, and future investigations should investigate the potential cost and value savings associated with expanded use in this population.

Mode of Fixation and Survivorship in Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty in the American Joint Replacement Registry.

BACKGROUND: A recent rapid increase in cementless total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has been noted in the American Joint Replacement Registry (AJRR). The purpose of our study was to compare TKA survivorship based on the mode of fixation reported to the AJRR in the Medicare population. METHODS: Primary TKAs from Medicare patients submitted to AJRR from 2012 to 2022 were analyzed. The Medicare and AJRR databases were merged. Cox regression stratified by sex compared revision outcomes (all-cause, infection, mechanical loosening, and fracture) for cemented, cementless, and hybrid fixation, controlling for age and the Charlson comorbidity index (CCI). RESULTS: A total of 634,470 primary TKAs were analyzed. Cementless TKAs were younger (71.8 versus 73.1 years, P < .001) than cemented TKAs and more frequently utilized in men (8.2 versus 5.8% women, P < .001). Regional differences were noted, with cementless fixation more common in the Northeast (10.5%) and South (9.2%) compared to the West (4.4%) and Midwest (4.3%) (P < .001). No significant differences were identified in all-cause revision rates in men or women ≥ 65 for cemented, cementless, or hybrid TKA after adjusting for age and CCI. Significantly lower revision for fracture was identified for cemented compared to cementless and hybrid fixation in women ≥ 65 after adjusting for age and CCI (P = .0169). CONCLUSIONS: No survivorship advantage for all-cause revision was noted based on the mode of fixation in men or women ≥ 65 after adjusting for age and CCI. A significantly lower revision rate for fractures was noted in women ≥ 65 utilizing cemented fixation. Cementless fixation in primary TKA should be used with caution in elderly women.

The Utilization of Press-Fit Total Knee Arthroplasty is Not Evenly Distributed: A National Registry Review.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluates trends of cemented versus press-fit total knee arthroplasty (TKA). We hypothesized that press-fit TKA is more common in younger and obese patients. There may also be racial, geographic, and institutional variation. METHODS: The American Joint Replacement Registry was used to conduct a retrospective review of primary TKA procedures for osteoarthritis in the United States between January 2019 and March 2022. The objective was to identify differences in incidence, demographics, body mass index (BMI), Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), and institutional teaching status (teaching vs. non-teaching) between press-fit and cemented TKAs. RESULTS: Two hundred ninety-seven thousand four hundred two patients (61% female, average age 68 years, 88.3% White) underwent cemented TKA versus 50,880 patients (52% female, average age 65 years, 89% White) underwent press-fit TKA. Overall, 20.8% of press-fit versus 19.9% of cemented TKA had a BMI of 35 to 39.9 and 15.2% of press-fit versus 12.5% of cemented TKA had BMI >40 ( P < 0.001). Patients undergoing press-fit TKA were less likely Black (OR = 0.727; P < 0.0001), Asian (OR = 0.651, P < 0.0001), and Native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islander (OR = 0.705, P < 0.02) with White as the reference group. Northeastern and Southern United States were more likely to use press-fit TKA than the Midwest (OR = 1.89 and OR = 1.87, P < 0.0001) and West (OR = 1.67; and OR = 1.65; P < 0.0001). Press-fit TKA incidence in 2019 was 9.9% versus 20.6% in 2022 ( P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Press-fit TKA is increasingly more common in Northeastern and Southern United States, and patients are older than expected. Patients with BMI >35 had a slightly higher rate of undergoing press-fit than cemented TKA. Notable racial differences also exist. Additional research addressing racial disparities and evaluating longevity of press-fit designs is needed.

Femoral Component Design Is Associated With the Risk of Periprosthetic Femur Fracture After Cementless THA in Patients 65 Years or Older.

BACKGROUND: Periprosthetic femur fracture is a known complication after THA. The associated risk of cementless femoral component design for periprosthetic femur fracture in a registry population of patients older than 65 years has yet to be clearly identified. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Is femoral stem geometry associated with the risk of periprosthetic femur fracture after cementless THA? (2) Is the presence or absence of a collar on cementless femoral implant designs associated with the risk of periprosthetic femur fracture after THA? METHODS: We analyzed American Joint Replacement Registry data from 2012 to March 2020. Unique to this registry is the high use of cementless femoral stems in patients 65 years and older. We identified 266,040 primary cementless THAs during the study period in patients with a diagnosis of osteoarthritis and surgeries linked to supplemental Centers for Medicare and Medicaid data where available. Patient demographics, procedure dates, and reoperation for periprosthetic femur fracture with revision or open reduction and internal fixation were recorded. The main analysis was performed comparing the Kheir and Chen classification: 42% (112,231 of 266,040) were single-wedge, 22% (57,758 of 266,040) were double-wedge, and 24% (62,983 of 266,040) were gradual taper/metadiaphyseal-filling cementless femoral components, which yielded a total of 232,972 primary cementless THAs. An additional analysis compared cementless stems with collars (20% [47,376 of 232,972]) with those with collarless designs (80% [185,596 of 232,972]). A Cox proportional hazard regression analysis with the competing risk of death was used to evaluate the association of design and fracture risk while adjusting for potential confounders. RESULTS: After controlling for the potentially confounding variables of age, sex, geographic region, osteoporosis or osteopenia diagnosis, hospital volume, and the competing risk of death, we found that compared with gradual taper/metadiaphyseal-filling stems, single-wedge designs were associated with a greater risk of periprosthetic femur fracture (HR 2.9 [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.2 to 3.9]; p < 0. 001). Compared with gradual taper/metadiaphyseal-filling stems, double-wedge designs showed an increased risk of periprosthetic femur fracture (HR 3.0 [95% CI 2.2 to 4.0]; p < 0. 001). Collarless stems showed an increased risk of periprosthetic fracture compared with collared stems (HR 7.8 [95% CI 4.1 to 15]; p < 0. 001). CONCLUSION: If cementless femoral fixation is used for THA in patients 65 years or older, surgeons should consider using gradual taper/metadiaphyseal-filling and collared stem designs because they are associated with a lower risk of periprosthetic femur fracture. Future investigations should compare gradual taper/metadiaphyseal-filling and collared cementless designs with cemented fixation in this population. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Is American Joint Replacement Registry Data Consistent With International Survivorship in Hip and Knee Arthroplasty? A Comparative Analysis.

BACKGROUND: In collaboration with the Orthopedic Data Evaluation Panel (ODEP), the American Joint Replacement Registry (AJRR) investigated the consistency of hip and knee arthroplasty survivorship results compared to the UK National Joint Registry (NJR). METHODS: A total of three primary knee devices and three primary hip devices were selected by AJRR and ODEP with known variation in performance. Implant manufacturers independently produced Kaplan Meier survivorship based on NJR data and submitted to ODEP for comparison. The AJRR mirrored the methodology, and results from both sources were stratified into three cohorts (all-age, < 65, and ≥ 65 years). RESULTS: There were 42,671 AJRR and 60,439 NJR primary knee cases and 70,169 AJRR and 422,657 NJR primary total hip arthroplasty cases. For TKA, performance between the AJRR and NJR were consistent, showing similar trends for comparatively high and low performing devices. Both PS and CR devices showed statistical agreement in survivorship for all 3 cohorts. Unicompartmental comparison also showed statistical agreement for the Medicare cohort. The all-age and < 65-year-old cohorts showed similar trends and reached statistical agreement through 7 and 6 years. For total hip arthroplasty, performance between the AJRR and NJR were consistent, showing similar trends for comparatively high and low performing devices; 0.18% average difference in survivorship at final follow-up (8 years). One femoral device did not reach statistical agreement but showed only 0.61% difference in survivorship. The remaining acetabular and femoral devices reached statistical agreement in all-ages and through 7 and 8 years in the ≥ 65-year-old cohort. CONCLUSIONS: AJRR and NJR performance trends and survivorship were similar across hip and knee arthroplasty with greatest consistency in the all-age and ≥ 65 cohorts. This focused comparison of survivorship showed encouraging results for reliability of patient outcomes in AJRR compared to the world's largest joint arthroplasty registry which has strong implications for global improvement in patient safety.

The use of antibiotic-loaded bone cement and systemic antibiotic prophylactic use in 2,971,357 primary total knee arthroplasties from 2010 to 2020: an international register-based observational study among countries in Africa, Europe, North America, and Oceania.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Antibiotic-loaded bone cement (ALBC) and systemic antibiotic prophylaxis (SAP) have been used to reduce periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) rates. We investigated the use of ALBC and SAP in primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This observational study is based on 2,971,357 primary TKAs reported in 2010-2020 to national/regional joint arthroplasty registries in Australia, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Romania, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, the UK, and the USA. Aggregate-level data on trends and types of bone cement, antibiotic agents, and doses and duration of SAP used was extracted from participating registries. RESULTS: ALBC was used in 77% of the TKAs with variation ranging from 100% in Norway to 31% in the USA. Palacos R+G was the most common (62%) ALBC type used. The primary antibiotic used in ALBC was gentamicin (94%). Use of ALBC in combination with SAP was common practice (77%). Cefazolin was the most common (32%) SAP agent. The doses and duration of SAP used varied from one single preoperative dosage as standard practice in Bolzano, Italy (98%) to 1-day 4 doses in Norway (83% of the 40,709 TKAs reported to the Norwegian arthroplasty register). CONCLUSION: The proportion of ALBC usage in primary TKA varies internationally, with gentamicin being the most common antibiotic. ALBC in combination with SAP was common practice, with cefazolin the most common SAP agent. The type of ALBC and type, dose, and duration of SAP varied among participating countries.

Surgeon input can increase the value of registry data: early experience from the American Spine Registry.

OBJECTIVE: Clear diagnostic delineation is necessary for the development of a strong evidence base in lumbar spinal surgery. Experience with existing national databases suggests that International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Edition (ICD-10) coding is insufficient to support that need. The purpose of this study was to assess agreement between surgeon-specified diagnostic indication and hospital-reported ICD-10 codes for lumbar spine surgery. METHODS: Data collection for the American Spine Registry (ASR) includes an option to denote the surgeon's specific diagnostic indication for each procedure. For cases treated between January 2020 and March 2022, surgeon-delineated diagnosis was compared with the ICD-10 diagnosis generated by standard ASR electronic medical record data extraction. For decompression-only cases, the primary analysis focused on the etiology of neural compression as determined by the surgeon versus that determined on the basis of the related ICD-10 codes extracted from the ASR database. For lumbar fusion cases, the primary analysis compared structural pathology, which may have required fusion, as determined by the surgeon versus that determined on the basis of the extracted ICD-10 codes. This allowed for identification of agreement between surgeon delineation and extracted ICD-10 codes. RESULTS: In 5926 decompression-only cases, agreement between the surgeon and ASR ICD-10 codes was 89% for spinal stenosis and 78% for lumbar disc herniation and/or radiculopathy. Both the surgeon and database indicated no structural pathology (i.e., none) suggesting the need for fusion in 88% of cases. In 5663 lumbar fusion cases, agreement was 76% for spondylolisthesis but poor for other diagnostic indications. CONCLUSIONS: Agreement between surgeon-specified diagnostic indication and hospital-reported ICD-10 codes was best for patients who underwent decompression only. In the fusion cases, agreement with ICD-10 codes was best in the spondylolisthesis group (76%). In cases other than spondylolisthesis, agreement was poor due to multiple diagnoses or lack of an ICD-10 code that reflected the pathology. This study suggested that standard ICD-10 codes may be inadequate to clearly define the indications for decompression or fusion in patients with lumbar degenerative disease.

Representativeness of the American Spine Registry: a comparison of patient characteristics with the National Inpatient Sample.

OBJECTIVE: The American Spine Registry (ASR) is a collaborative effort between the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and the American Association of Neurological Surgeons. The goal of this study was to evaluate how representative the ASR is of the national practice with spinal procedures, as recorded in the National Inpatient Sample (NIS). METHODS: The authors queried the NIS and the ASR for cervical and lumbar arthrodesis cases performed during 2017-2019. International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision and Current Procedural Terminology codes were used to identify patients undergoing cervical and lumbar procedures. The two groups were compared for the overall proportion of cervical and lumbar procedures, age distribution, sex, surgical approach features, race, and hospital volume. Outcomes available in the ASR, such as patient-reported outcomes and reoperations, were not analyzed due to nonavailability in the NIS. The representativeness of the ASR compared to the NIS was assessed via Cohen's d effect sizes, and absolute standardized mean differences (SMDs) of < 0.2 were considered trivial, whereas > 0.5 were considered moderately large. RESULTS: A total of 24,800 arthrodesis procedures were identified in the ASR for the period between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2019. During the same time period, 1,305,360 cases were recorded in the NIS. Cervical fusions comprised 35.9% of the ASR cohort (8911 cases) and 36.0% of the NIS cohort (469,287 cases). The two databases presented trivial differences in terms of patient age and sex for all years of interest across both cervical and lumbar arthrodeses (SMD < 0.2). Trivial differences were also noted in the distribution of open versus percutaneous procedures of the cervical and lumbar spine (SMD < 0.2). Among lumbar cases, anterior approaches were more common in the ASR than in the NIS (32.1% vs 22.3%, SMD = 0.22), but the discrepancy among cervical cases in the two databases was trivial (SMD = 0.03). Small differences were illustrated in terms of race, with SMDs < 0.5, and a more significant discrepancy was identified in the geographic distribution of participating sites (SMDs of 0.7 and 0.74 for cervical and lumbar cases, respectively). For both of these measures, SMDs in 2019 were smaller than those in 2018 and 2017. CONCLUSIONS: The ASR and NIS databases presented a very high similarity in proportions of cervical and lumbar spine surgeries, as well as similar distributions of age and sex, and distribution of open versus endoscopic approach. Slight discrepancies in anterior versus posterior approach among lumbar cases and patient race, and more significant discrepancies in geographic representation were also identified, yet decreasing trends in differences suggested the improving representativeness of the ASR over the course of time and its progressive growth. These conclusions are important to underline the external validity of quality investigations and research conclusions to be drawn from analyses in which the ASR is used.

Dual Mobility Articulation in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: An American Joint Replacement Registry Analysis of Patients Aged 65 Years and Older.

BACKGROUND: Increasingly, dual mobility (DM) articulations have been used in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA), which may prevent postoperative hip instability. The purpose of this study was to report on outcomes of DM implants used in revision THA from the American Joint Replacement Registry (AJRR). METHODS: Revision THA cases performed between 2012 and 2018 Medicare were eligible and categorized by 3 articulations: DM, ≤32 mm, and ≥36 mm femoral heads. The AJRR-sourced revision THA cases were linked to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) claims data to supplement (re)revision cases not captured in the AJRR. Patient and hospital characteristics were described and modeled as covariates. Using multivariable Cox proportional hazard models, considering competing risk of mortalities, hazard ratios were estimated for all-cause re-revision and re-revision for instability. Of 20,728 revision THAs, 3,043 (14.7%) received a DM, 6,565 (31.7%) a ≤32 mm head, and 11,120 (53.6%) a ≥36 mm head. RESULTS: At 8-year follow-up, the cumulative all-cause re-revision rate for ≤32 mm heads was 21.9% (95%-confidence interval (CI) 20.2%-23.7%) and significantly (P < .0001) higher than DM (16.5%, 95%-CI 15.0%-18.2%) and ≥36 mm heads (15.2%, 95%-CI 14.2%-16.3%). At 8-year follow-up, ≥36 heads had significantly (P < .0001) lower hazard of re-revision for instability (3.3%, 95%-CI 2.9%-3.7%) while the DM (5.4%, 95%-CI 4.5%-6.5%) and ≤32 mm groups (8.6%, 95%-CI 7.7%-9.6%) had higher rates. CONCLUSION: The DM bearings are associated with lower rates of revision for instability compared to patients who had ≤32 mm heads and higher revision rates for ≥36 mm heads. These results may be biased due to unidentified covariates associated with implant selection.

Cemented Femoral Fixation in Total Hip Arthroplasty Reduces the Risk of Periprosthetic Femur Fracture in Patients 65 Years and Older: An Analysis From the American Joint Replacement Registry.

BACKGROUND: Periprosthetic femur fracture (PPFx) is a devastating complication after total hip arthroplasty (THA). Despite concerns for increased PPFx, cementless fixation predominates in the United States. This study used the American Joint Replacement Registry to compare PPFx risk between cemented and cementless femoral fixation for THA. METHODS: An analysis of primary THA cases in patients aged 65 years and more was performed with the American Joint Replacement Registry data linked to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services data from 2012 to 2020. Analyses compared cemented to cementless femoral fixation. We identified 279,052 primary THAs, 266,040 (95.3%) with cementless and 13,012 (4.7%) with cemented femoral fixation. Cox proportional hazard regression analyses evaluated the association of fixation and PPFx risk, while adjusting for sex, age, and competing risk of mortality. Cumulative incidence function survival curves evaluated time to PPFx. RESULTS: Age ≥ 80 years (P < .0001) and women (P < .0001) were associated with PPFx. Compared to cemented stems, cementless stems had an elevated risk of PPFx (Hazards Ratio 7.70, 95% Confidence interval 3.2-18.6, P < .0001). The cumulative incidence function curves demonstrated an increased risk for PPFx across all time points for cementless stems, with equal magnitude of risk to 8 years.` CONCLUSION: Cementless femoral fixation in THA continues to predominate in the United States, with cementless femoral fixation demonstrating increased risk of PPFx in patients aged 65 years or more. Surgeons should consider greater use of cemented femoral fixation in this population to decrease the risk of PPFx.

Timing and Factors Associated With Revision for Infection After Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty Based on American Joint Replacement Registry Data.

BACKGROUND: Infection following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remains a challenging clinical problem. Using American Joint Replacement Registry data, this study examined factors related to the incidence and timing of infection. METHODS: Primary TKAs performed from January 2012 through December 2018 among patients ≥65 years of age at surgery were queried from the American Joint Replacement Registry and merged with Medicare data to enhance capture of revisions for infection. Multivariate Cox regressions incorporating patient, surgical, and institutional factors were used to produce hazard ratios (HRs) associated with revision for infection and mortality after revision for infection. RESULTS: Among 525,887 TKAs, 2,821 (0.54%) were revised for infection. Men had an increased risk of revision for infection at all-time intervals (≤90 days, HR = 2.06, 95% CI: 1.75-2.43, P < .0001; >90 days to 1 year, HR = 1.90, 95% CI: 1.58-2.28, P < .0001; >1 year, HR = 1.57, 95% CI: 1.37-1.79, P < .0001). TKAs performed for osteoarthritis had an increased risk of revision for infection at ≤90 days (HR = 2.01, 95% CI: 1.45-2.78, P < .0001) but not at later times. Mortality was more likely among patients who had a Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) ≥ 5 compared to those who had a CCI ≤ 2 (HR = 3.21, 95% CI: 1.35-7.63, P = .008). Mortality was also more likely among older patients (HR = 1.61 for each decade, 95% CI: 1.04-2.49, P = .03). CONCLUSION: Based on primary TKAs performed in the United States, men were found to have a persistently higher risk of revision for infection, while a diagnosis of osteoarthritis was associated with a significantly higher risk only during the first 90 days after surgery.

Dislocation Rates of Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty in Patients With Prior Lumbar Spine Fusion and Lumbar Degenerative Disk Disease With and Without Utilization of Dual Mobility Cups: An American Joint Replacement Registry Study.

INTRODUCTION: Patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) with a previous history of lumbar spine fusion (LSF) are at increased risk of dislocation. The purpose of this study was to compare the 90-day and 1-year dislocation rates of patients with LSF or lumbar degenerative disk disease who underwent primary THA with and without dual mobility (DM) constructs. METHODS: An American Joint Replacement Registry data set of patients aged 65 years and older undergoing primary THA with minimum 1-year follow-up with a history of prior LSF or a diagnosis of lumbar degenerative disk disease was created. DM status was identified, and dislocation and all-cause revision at 90 days and 1 year were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 15,572 patients met study criteria. The overall dislocation rates for the non-DM and DM groups were 1.17% and 0.68%, respectively, at 90 days, and 1.68% and 0.91%, respectively, at 1 year ( P = 0.005). The odds of 90-day (OR = 0.578, [ P = 0.0328]) and 1-year (OR = 0.534, [ P = 0.0044]) dislocation were significantly less with DM constructs, compared with non-DM constructs. No statistically significant difference was observed in revision rates between groups. DISCUSSION: This large registry-based study identified a reduced risk of dislocation in patients at risk for spinal stiffness when a DM compared with non-DM construct was used in primary THA at 90-day and 1-year follow-up intervals. Our data support the use of DM constructs in high-risk patients with stiff spines and altered spinopelvic mobility as a promising option to mitigate the risk of postoperative hip instability after primary THA. LEVELS OF EVIDENCE: Level III. Therapeutic retrospective cohort.

The James A. Rand Young Investigator's Award: Increased Revision Risk With Mobile Bearings in Total Knee Arthroplasty: An Analysis of the American Joint Replacement Registry.

BACKGROUND: Mobile-bearing (MB) total knee arthroplasty (TKA) may reduce wear and improve patellar tracking but may increase revision risk due to tibial component design, balance complexity, and bearing dislocation. We utilized the American Joint Replacement Registry to examine risk of revision with MB compared to fixed-bearing (FB) designs. METHODS: An analysis of primary TKA in patients over 65 years was performed with American Joint Replacement Registry data linked to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services data from 2012 to 2019. Analyses compared MB to FB designs with a subanalysis of implants from a single company. We identified 485,024 TKAs, with 452,199 (93.2%) FB-TKAs and 32,825 (6.8%) MB-TKAs. Cox proportional hazards regression modeling was used for all-cause revision and revision for infection, adjusting for sex, age, and competing risk of mortality. Event-free survival curves evaluated time to all-cause revision and revision for infection. RESULTS: MB-TKAs were at an increased risk for all-cause revision: hazard ratio (HR) 1.36 ([95% confidence interval (CI) 1.24-1.49], P < .0001) but not revision for infection: HR 1.06 ([95% CI 0.90-1.25], P = .52). When comparing implants within a single company, MB-TKAs were at an increased risk of all-cause revision: HR 1.55 ([95% CI 1.38-1.73], P < .0001). Event-free survival curves demonstrated increased risk for all-cause revision for MB-TKA across all time points, with a greater magnitude of risk up to 8 years. CONCLUSION: Although survivorship of both designs was outstanding, MB-TKA designs demonstrated increased risk for all-cause revision. Additional investigation is needed to determine if this is related to patient selection factors, surgical technique, bearing, or implant design.

No Reduction in Revision Risk Associated With Highly Cross-linked Polyethylene With or Without Antioxidants Over Conventional Polyetheylene in TKA: An Analysis From the American Joint Replacement Registry.

BACKGROUND: Highly cross-linked polyethylene (HXLPE) can improve wear properties in TKA, but it can also lead to decreased mechanical properties. Antioxidants were added to HXLPE to improve its mechanical properties while retaining the improved wear characteristics. However, it remains unclear whether these modifications to conventional polytheylene used in TKA have resulted in a change in the revision risk. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We used American Joint Replacement Registry data to ask: (1) Is there a difference in all-cause revision in patients who underwent TKA using HXLPE with or without an antioxidant doping compared with conventional polyethylene? (2) Is there a difference in revision for aseptic failure in patients who underwent TKA using HXLPE with or without an antioxidant doping compared with conventional polyethylene? METHODS: We analyzed American Joint Replacement Registry data from 2012 to 2019. We identified 339,366 primary TKAs over the study period in patients older than 65 years and linked procedures to supplemental Centers for Medicare & Medicaid data where available. Patient total number of reported comorbidities, gender, age, region, polyethylene characteristics, procedure dates, and indication for revision were recorded. Median follow-up was 34 months. We compared HXLPE with or without antioxidants to conventional polyethylene. Event-free percent survival curves and Cox proportional hazard regression modeling was used for all-cause revision and revision for aseptic failure. RESULTS: Compared with conventional polyethylene, there was no difference in all-cause revision with HXLPE with an antioxidant (HR 1.06 [95% CI 0.98 to 1.14]; p = 0.13) or HXLPE without an antioxidant (HR 1.04 [95% CI 0.97 to 1.11]; p = 0.28). Compared with conventional polyethylene, there was no difference in revision for aseptic failure with HXLPE with an antioxidant (HR 1.07 [95% CI 0.99 to 1.14]; p = 0.08) or HXLPE without an antioxidant (HR 1.03 [95% CI 0.97 to 1.01]; p = 0.30). CONCLUSION: We found no difference in revision risk between HXLPE with or without an antioxidant and conventional polyethylene during this time frame. HXLPE polyethylene, with or without an antioxidant, should not be widely adopted until or unless it is shown to be superior to conventional polyethylene in TKA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Revision Risk for Total Knee Arthroplasty Polyethylene Designs in Patients 65 Years of Age or Older: An Analysis from the American Joint Replacement Registry.

BACKGROUND: Polyethylene bearing design may influence the risk of revision after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Previous investigations from outside of the United States have suggested the potential for an increased risk of all-cause revision and revision for infection with the use of posterior-stabilized bearings. We examine the risk of revision based on the polyethylene bearing design selection for primary TKA. METHODS: An analysis of the American Joint Replacement Registry (AJRR) data from 2012 to 2019 was performed. We identified all primary TKAs over the study period and linked cases to supplemental U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) data where available. Patient demographic characteristics, polyethylene characteristics, procedure dates, and cause for revision were recorded. Analysis was performed to compare minimally stabilized implants (cruciate-retaining, anterior-stabilized, or pivot bearing designs) with posterior-stabilized implants. Cumulative incidence function (CIF) curves and Cox proportional hazard ratios (HRs) were created for all-cause revision and revision for infection in each group. RESULTS: We identified 305,279 cases with reported minimally stabilized or posterior-stabilized implant characteristics. There were 161,486 cases (52.9%) that utilized posterior-stabilized bearings compared with 143,793 cases (47.1%) with minimally stabilized bearings. For minimally stabilized bearings, 1,693 cases (1.18%) had all-cause revision and 334 cases (0.23%) had revision for infection. For posterior-stabilized bearings, 2,406 cases (1.49%) had all-cause revision and 446 cases (0.28%) had revision for infection. The use of posterior-stabilized bearings had HRs of 1.25 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2 to 1.3; p < 0.0001) for all-cause revision and 1.18 (95% CI, 1.0 to 1.4; p = 0.02) for revision for infection. CONCLUSIONS: Similar to investigations from international registries, we found an increased risk of all-cause revision and revision for infection when using posterior-stabilized bearings in TKA in the United States. Surgeons should consider this finding when considering bearing selection for primary TKA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Modular Metal-Backed Tibial Components Provide Minimal Mid-Term Survivorship Benefits Despite Increased Cost and Frequency of Use: A Retrospective Review of the American Joint Replacement Registry Database.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have demonstrated equivalent survivorship of modular metal-backed tibial (MBT) and all-polyethylene tibial (APT) components. The purpose of this study is to compare the utilization and outcomes of APT and MBT components in a large US database. METHODS: The American Joint Replacement Registry was queried to identify all patients undergoing primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) during the study period from 2012 to 2019. These patients were divided into cohorts based on tibial component (APT or MBT). Cohort demographics including gender, hospital size, hospital teaching status, region, age, and Charlson Comorbidity Index were reported with descriptive statistics. Overall reoperation rates and revisions for infection, aseptic loosening, periprosthetic fracture, manipulation under anesthesia, and revision for other reasons were identified using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision and Current Procedural Terminology codes and compared across APT and MBT cohorts. Kaplan-Meir survival analysis was performed based on reason for reoperation for APT and MBT. RESULTS: During the study period, 703,007 TKAs were reported with 97.8% utilizing MBT and 2.2% utilizing APT components. Despite the introduction of alternative payment models during the study period, the utilization of APT decreased from 5.8% in 2012 to 1.7% in 2019. The survival of APT and MBT TKAs were similar across the study period: 98.1% vs 98.6% at 8 years. The rate of reoperation for all-causes was higher for APT compared to MBT (1.36% vs 1.00%; odds ratio 1.52). CONCLUSION: Despite their paucity of use and lower cost APT remained within a 0.4% margin of survivorship when compared to MBT implants for up to 8 years. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective.

Effects of Hospital and Surgeon Volume on Patient Outcomes After Total Joint Arthroplasty: Reported From the American Joint Replacement Registry.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate outcomes and complications because it relates to surgeon and hospital volume for patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) using the American Joint Replacement Registry from 2012 to 2017. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted on Medicare-eligible cases of primary elective THAs and TKAs reported to the American Joint Replacement Registry database and was linked with the available Centers of Medicaid and Medicare Services claims and the National Death Index data from 2012 to 2017. Surgeon and hospital volume were defined separately based on the median annual number of anatomic-specific total arthroplasty procedures performed on patients of any age per surgeon and per hospital. Values were aggregated into separate surgeon and hospital volume tertile groupings and combined to create pairwise comparison surgeon/hospital volume groupings for hip and knee. RESULTS: Adjusted multivariable logistic regression analysis found low surgeon/low hospital volume to have the greatest association with all-cause revisions after THA (odds ratio [OR], 1.63, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.41-1.89, P < 0.0001) and TKA (OR, 1.72, 95% CI, 1.44-2.06, P < 0.0001), early revisions because of periprosthetic joint infection after THA (OR, 2.50, 95% CI, 1.53-3.15, P < 0.0001) and TKA (OR, 2.18, 95% CI, 1.64-2.89, P < 0.0001), risk of early THA instability and dislocation (OR, 2.47, 95% CI, 1.77-3.46, P < 0.0001), and 90-day mortality after THA (OR, 1.72, 95% CI, 1.27-2.35, P = 0.0005) and TKA (OR, 1.47, 95% CI, 1.15-1.86, P = 0.002). CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrate considerably greater THA and TKA complications when performed at low-volume hospitals by low-volume surgeons. Given the data from previous literature including this study, a continued push through healthcare policies and healthcare systems is warranted to direct THA and TKA procedures to high-volume centers by high-volume surgeons because of the evident decrease in complications and considerable costs associated with all-cause revisions, periprosthetic joint infection, instability, and 90-day mortality. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

American Society of Plastic Surgeons Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guideline Revision: Reduction Mammaplasty.

SUMMARY: A multidisciplinary work group involving stakeholders from various backgrounds and societies convened to revise the guideline for reduction mammaplasty. The goal was to develop evidence-based patient care recommendations using the new American Society of Plastic Surgeons guideline methodology. The work group prioritized reviewing the evidence around the need for surgery as first-line treatment, regardless of resection weight or volume. Other factors evaluated included the need for drains, the need for postoperative oral antibiotics, risk factors that increase complications, a comparison in outcomes between the two most popular techniques (inferior and superomedial), the impact of local anesthetic on narcotic use and other nonnarcotic pain management strategies, the use of epinephrine, and the need for specimen pathology. A systematic literature review was performed, and an established appraisal process was used to rate the quality of relevant scientific research (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology). Evidence-based recommendations were made and strength was determined based on the level of evidence and the assessment of benefits and harms.

Trends in Polyethylene Design and Manufacturing Characteristics for Total Knee Arthroplasty: An Analysis From the American Joint Replacement Registry.

BACKGROUND: Advances in polyethylene bearing characteristics have led to various options for total knee arthroplasty. We examine trends in use of polyethylene in the United States. METHODS: An analysis of American Joint Replacement Registry data from 2012 to 2019 for primary total knee arthroplasty procedures was conducted. Design and manufacturing characteristics were obtained and validated in the American Joint Replacement Registry dataset. Polyethylene bearing design and manufacturing use characteristics were compared by year, gender, age group, and geographic region of the procedure. Descriptive analysis was performed. RESULTS: We identified 993,292 cases over the study period. In total, 791,233 (80%) cases had complete device data available and were included in analysis. In addition, 366,280 (49.4%) cases utilized minimally stabilized bearings compared to 374,809 (50.6%) for posterior-stabilized bearings. Posterior-stabilized use was stable over the study period and highest in the Northeast (64.5%; P < .0001). Cruciate-retaining use decreased from 29.7% to 20.2% and anterior-stabilized use increased from 17.4% to 25.2%. Conventional polyethylene use decreased from 42.8% to 21.9%, and was highest in the 81+ age group (37.8%; P < .0001) and Northeast (43.0%; P < .0001). Highly cross-linked polyethylene (HXLPE) with antioxidant use increased from 9.08% to 31.8%, while HXLPE without antioxidant use remained constant. CONCLUSION: There was an increase in use of anterior-stabilized and pivot bearings and an increase in use of HXLPE with antioxidant. Additionally, there were noted age group and regional differences in the use of various bearings. Further study should evaluate if these changing utilization trends are related to clinical outcomes, or due to regional training, preferences, or manufacturer pressures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective.

Migration Patterns for Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty in the United States as Reported in the American Joint Replacement Registry.

BACKGROUND: Revision total hip arthroplasty (revTHA) is associated with higher rates of complications and greater costs than primary procedures. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of hospital size, teaching status, and indication for revTHA, on migration patterns in patients older than 65 years old. METHODS: All THAs and revTHAs reported to the American Joint Replacement Registry from 2012 to 2018 were included and merged with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services database. Migration rate was defined as a patient's THA and revTHA procedures that were performed at separate institutions by different surgeons. Migratory patterns were recorded based on hospital size, teaching status, and indication for revTHA. Analyses were performed by statisticians. RESULTS: The number of linked procedures included was 11,906. Migration rates in revTHA due to infection were higher for small hospitals than large hospitals (46.6% vs 28.6%, P < .0001). Migration rates were higher comparing non-teaching with teaching hospitals (55% vs 34%, P < .0001). This difference was significant for periprosthetic fractures (70.6% vs 37.2%, P = .005), instability (56.5% vs 35.5%, P = .04), and mechanical complications (88.9% vs 34.7%, P < .05). Most patients migrated to medium or large hospitals rather than small hospitals (89% vs 11%, P < .0001) and to teaching rather than non-teaching institutions (82% vs 18%, P < .0001). CONCLUSION: Hospital size and teaching status significantly affected migration patterns for revTHA. Migration rates were significantly higher in small non-teaching hospitals in revTHA due to infection, periprosthetic fracture, instability, and mechanical complications. Over 80% of patients migrated to larger teaching hospitals.