Instability and aseptic loosening are the two main complications after revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA). Dual-mobility (DM) cups were shown to counteract implant instability during rTHA. To our knowledge, no study evaluated the 10-year outcomes of rTHA using DM cups, cemented into a metal reinforcement ring, in cases of severe acetabular bone loss. We hypothesized that using a DM cup cemented into a metal ring is a reliable technique for rTHA at 10 years, with few revisions for acetabular loosening and/or instability. This is a retrospective study of 77 rTHA cases with severe acetabular bone loss (Paprosky ≥ 2C) treated exclusively with a DM cup (NOVAE STICK; SERF, DÉCINES-CHARPIEU, FRANCE) cemented into a cage (Kerboull cross, Burch-Schneider, or ARM rings). Clinical scores and radiological assessments were performed preoperatively and at the last follow-up. The main endpoints were revision surgery for aseptic loosening or recurring dislocation. With a mean follow-up of 10.7 years [2.1-16.2], 3 patients were reoperated because of aseptic acetabular loosening (3.9%) at 9.6 years [7-12]. Seven patients (9.45%) dislocated their hip implant, only 1 suffered from chronic instability (1.3%). Cup survivorship was 96.1% at 10 years. No sign of progressive radiolucent lines were found and bone graft integration was satisfactory for 91% of the patients. The use of a DM cup cemented into a metal ring during rTHA with complex acetabular bone loss was associated with low revision rates for either acetabular loosening or chronic instability at 10 years. That's why we also recommend DM cup for all high risk of dislocation situations

Introduction. While advances in joint-replacement technology have made total ankle arthroplasty a viable treatment for end-stage arthritis, revision rates for ankle replacements are higher than in hip or knee replacements [1]. The questions asked in this study were (1) what retrieved ankle devices demonstrate about ankle arthroplasty failures, and (2) how do these failures compare to those seen in the hip and the knee?. Materials and Methods. An IRB-approved retrieval laboratory received retrieved polyethylene inserts and surgeon-supplied reason for revision from 70 total-ankles (7 designs, including five currently-marketed designs) from 2002 to the present. All retrievals were rated for clinical damage. Polyethylene inserts received six months or less after retrieval (n=45) were analyzed for oxidation using Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy, reported as maximum ketone oxidation index [2]. Insert sterilization method was verified using trans-vinylene index [3]. Oxidation measured in the 45 ankle inserts versus their time in vivo was compared to oxidation rates previously published for gamma-sterilized hip and knee polyethylene retrievals [6]. Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS v.22. Results. The ankle devices were retrieved most commonly for loosening (n=22) followed by polyethylene fracture (n=9). These failure modes occurred after statistically different in vivo time (loosening: mean=4.4±3.6 years; polyethylene insert fracture: mean=9.5±4.1 years; p=0.002). Presence of clinical fatigue (cracking and/or delamination) was identified in 24 of the 70 retrieved inserts, and its presence correlated with in vivo time (Spearman's rho =0.449, p<0.001). Thirteen of these fatigued inserts were analyzed by FTIR. TVI analysis confirmed the sterilization method of the fatigued inserts: 12 gamma, 1 non-gamma sterilized. All 13 fatigued inserts had maximum ketone oxidation index (KOI) of 1.2 or higher. Presence of fatigue correlated with measured oxidation (Spearman's rho =0.685, p<0.001). Six of the 9 inserts that fractured in vivo were analyzed by FTIR. All were gamma-sterilized, and all had oxidation of 1.2 or higher. Oxidation rate determined for most of the 45 ankle inserts was at or above oxidation rates previously published for gamma-sterilized hip and knee polyethylene retrievals [6]. Discussion. This retrieval study concurs with the ankle arthroplasty literature that loosening is the most common reason for ankle revision [4]. Ankle inserts retrieved as a result of implant loosening had lower oxidation and no fatigue damage resulting from their shorter in vivo time. Fatigued and/or fractured inserts were in vivo for longer times, allowing more oxidation to occur. The effect of oxidation on polyethylene tensile strength and ductility has been reported for tibial inserts [5]. Oxidation above the critical value [5] has a dramatic effect on the ability of the polyethylene to resist fatigue damage and fracture, since the toughness of the polyethylene drops to near zero. All fatigued and fractured ankle inserts had oxidation that exceeded this critical oxidation. Most ankle inserts, whether gamma or non-gamma sterilized, oxidized at or above the oxidation rates previously published for gamma-sterilized hip and knee polyethylene retrievals [6]

There is increasing focus on publishing comparable data for individual hospitals and surgeons. The Dr Foster website is one portal for accessing such information, and uses hospital episode statistics sent to the Department of Health. For 2008–2011 our Trust was labelled as a statistical outlier with high one year revision rates for total knee replacement; relative risk was 2.53. We examined the accuracy of this information. According to Dr Foster's data, out of 1517 primary total knee replacements performed between April 2008 and March 2011, fifty-five were revised within one year (29 female: 26 male). This gave a revision rate of 3.6% compared to a 1.4% national average. We reviewed patient records for those labelled as revisions. Of these cases, only one was a revision total knee replacement within one year. Forty-four had a manipulation under anaesthesia for stiffness and the remaining cases had alternative operations such as arthroscopic washout. For our Trust, therefore, the data is inaccurate, and a patient relying on such data would be misled. Either Trusts should work with Dr Foster to improve accurate coding of data, or they should keep ownership of their data, and publish accurate figures of their own

A long surgical procedure length has been well associated with worse clinical outcomes, also in an economic climate where in the theatre, time is money, surgical procedures are done very rapidly. Few studies have documented the clinical outcomes of procedure speed. Using the New Zealand Registry we reviewed the operation time of 41,560 primary knee joint replacements. These were split into groups of time slots for the surgery from less than 40 minutes, 40–59, 60–89, 90–119, 120–179 and greater than 180mins. This was referenced to the oxford knee scores obtained and the revision rate. For operations done in less than 40 or greater than 180 minutes, the oxford knee score was lower by 5 years. The revision rate was also increased in these same groups. Operations done in greater than 180 minutes are generally the more complex non-osteoarthrtic and tumour cases and have a higher revision rate reflecting their complexity. Procedures done less than 40 minutes are more straight forward, but there is a relationship shown between this speed and revision rate and poorer outcome. The cause is likely multifactorial, but begs the question, does speed kill?

Objective. To evaluate the volume of cases, causes of failure, complications in patients with a failed Thompson hemiarthroplasty. Methods. A retrospective review was undertaken between 2005–11, of all Thompson implant revised in the trust. Patients were identified by clinical coding. All case notes were reviewed. Data collection included patients demographic, time to revision, reason for revision, type of revision implant, surgical time and technique, transfusion, complications, HDU stay, mobility pre and post revision,. Results. 23 patients were identified, age 81 years (range 76–90). male to female ratio was 2:21, 11 right and 12 left hip. Mean time to failure was 50 months (1–104 m) range, mean follow up post revision surgery 26 months (3–77). Reason for revision was dislocation in 3 patients (13%), femoral loosening 5 (21%), peri-prosthetic fracture 3 (13%), Infection 6 (26%) and acetabular erosion 6 (26%). There were six infected cases in the study which was all aspirated preoperatively off which only 4 were positive. All infected cases grew an organism from intra-operative specimens. (80% cases) were coagulase negative Staphylococcus aureus. 35% only positive on enrichment cultures. 4 infected Thompsons were revised successfully with 2 stage revisions. One patient died after 1. st. stage and another was able to mobilise after the first stage with a cement spacer and refused further surgery. Mean surgical time was 3.5 hours (range 2.5–5.5). HDU stay 1.3 days (range 0–6). 6 deaths in total, 3 unrelated, 3 post operative. Complications included 1 fracture requiring revision, 1 dislocation, 1 foot drop and 4 chest infection of which two patients died from this. Conclusion. We identified a revision rate of 1.2%, complication occurred in 43% of cases with a one year mortality of 26%. Failed Thompson revision surgery is rare, challenging and patient selection is important to reduce postoperative morbidity and mortality

Introduction. High BMI has been classically regarded as a contraindication for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) as it can potentially lead to poor clinical outcomes and a higher risk of failure. In recent years, UKA has increased in popularity and, as a result, patient selection criteria are beginning to broaden. However, UKA performed manually continues to be technically challenging and surgical technique errors may result in suboptimal implant positioning. UKA performed with robotic assistance has been shown to improve component positioning, overall limb alignment, and ligament balancing, resulting in overall improved clinical outcomes. The purpose of this study is to examine the effect of high BMI in patients receiving UKA with robotic assistance. Methods. 1007 patients (1135 knees) were identified in an initial and consecutive multi-surgeon multi-center series receiving robotically assisted medial UKA, with a fixed bearing metal backed onlay tibial component. As part of an IRB approved study, every patient in the series was contacted at a minimum two year (±2 months) follow up and asked a series of questions to determine implant survivorship and satisfaction. 160 patients were lost to follow up, 35 patients declined to participate, and 15 patients were deceased. 797 patients (909 knees) at a minimum two year follow up enrolled in the study for an enrollment rate of 80%. 45% of the patients were female. The average age at time of surgery was 69.0 ± 9.5 (range: 39–93). BMI data was available for 887 knees; the average BMI at time of surgery was 29.4 ± 4.9. Patients were stratified in to five categories based on their BMI: normal (< 25; 16%), overweight (25–30; 46%), obese class I (30–35; 25%), obese class II (35–40; 11%) and obese class III (>40; 2%). Results. Across all BMI groups, nine knees were reported as revised at two years post-operative yielding a two year revision rate of 0.99%, 4 in the overweight group, 2 in the obese class I group and 3 in the obese class II group. There was no significant difference in the rate of revision between the BMI groups (c. 2. (4, N = 887) = 6.04, p = 0.20). Of the 3 revisions for tibial component loosening, one occurred in the overweight group, one in the obese group and one in the morbidly obese group. The overall patient satisfaction rate for the entire population was 92% with the following distribution: normal: 92%, overweight: 93%, obese class I: 92%, obese class II: 87% and obese class III: 83%. While the most severely obese patients tended to be less satisfied, this was not statistically significant between the groups (c. 2. (4, N = 887) = 5.12, p = 0.27). Conclusion. These results suggest that BMI does not effect the survivorship or the satisfaction of patients undergoing robotically assisted UKA. Advancement in UKA implant designs and improvements in surgical technique may help to broaden indications and patient selection for UKA. This study will continue to track patients mid to long term to determine the longer term effect of robotically assisted UKA on high BMI patients

Introduction. Patients ≤ 55 years have a high primary TKA revision rate compared to patients >55 years. Guided motion knee devices are commonly used in younger patients yet outcomes remain unknown. Materials and Methods. In this sub-group analysis of a large multicenter study, 254 TKAs with a second-generation guided motion knee implant (Journey II Bi-Cruciate Stabilized Knee System, Smith & Nephew, Inc., Memphis) were performed between 2011–2017 in 202 patients ≤ 55 years at seven US and three European sites. Revision rates were compared with Australian Joint Registry (AOANJRR) 2017 data. Results. Average age 49.7 (range 18–54); 56.4% females; average BMI 34 kg/m. 2. ; 67.1% obese; patellae resurfaced in 98.4%. Average follow-up 4.2 years; longest follow-up six years; 27.5% followed-up for ≥ five years. Of eight revisions: total revision (one), tibial plate replacements (three), tibial insert exchanges (four). One tibial plate revision re-revised to total revision. Revision indications were mechanical loosening (n=2), infection (n=3), peri-prosthetic fracture (n=1), and instability (n=2). The Kaplan-Meier revision estimate was 3.4% (95% C.I. 1.7% to 6.7%) at five years compared to AOANJRR rate of 6.9%. There was no differential risk by sex. Discussion. Reasons for high TKA revision rates in younger patients remain unknown. Conclusion. The revision rate of the second-generation guided motion knee system is lower in younger patients compared to registry controls

Introduction. We previously reported a 28% short-term corrosion-related revision rate of recalled Rejuvenate modular stem. The purpose of this study was to assess the mid-term clinical results and survivorship of this implant. Methods. Between June 2009 and July 2012, 73 total hip arthroplasty (THA) in 63 patients with the Rejuvenate modular neck implant were performed by a single surgeon and prospectively followed. Average age was 63.2 ± 12.6 years (28 to 86). Elevated metal ion (= 2 µg/L), pain, or positive MRI findings were indication for revision surgery. Correlation between patient factors with serum metal ion levels and revisions were analyzed. Results. At an average follow-up of 4.2 ± 0.6 years (3.0 to 5.5), 57 hips (48 patients, 78%) were revised at mean of 3.2 ± 1 years (1 to 5.5); and 6 other have been scheduled for surgery. The Kaplan-Meier survivorship was 22 % at 5.5 years. Visible corrosion was seen at the trunion-stem junction in each revision case. 51 of 57 hips undergoing revision (89%), had elevated preoperative serum Co levels, 24 (42%) had elevated preoperative Cr. The average serum Co and Cr ion levels prior to revision surgery were 10 ± 8 µg/L (0.3 to 40) and 2.3 ± 1.5 µg/L (1 to 7.4), respectively. There was a significant correlation between revision surgery and younger age (p=0.0137). 52 hips underwent MRI evaluation, 22 hips (42%) had positive findings correlated to pain (p=0.025): 11 hips demonstrated adverse local soft tissue reactions such as fluid collection, capsular thickening, osteolysis, or synovitis, and 11 hips showed evidence of pseudotumor. Conclusions. At mid-term follow-up, 86% of the Rejuvenated modular neck stems have been revised or awaiting revision. Given these findings, all patients with a Rejuvenate modular neck stem implant should be followed closely and advised of impending failure

Introduction. The mobile-bearing (MB) total knee arthroplasty (TKA) design was introduced with the aim of reducing polyethylene wear and component loosening seen in the fixed-bearing (FB) design. A recent joint registry study has revealed increased risk for all-cause revision, but not revision for infection, in MB-TKA. We used the New Zealand Joint Registry (NZJR) to compare all-cause revision rates, and revision rates for aseptic loosening of MB-TKA compared with fixed bearing (FB) TKA. Methods. All patients who underwent a primary TKA registered in the NZJR between the 1st January 1999 to 31st December 2021 were identified. Analysis compared MB to FB designs, with sub analysis of implants from a single company. We identified 135,707 primary TKAs, with 104,074 (76.7%) FB-TKAs and 31,633 (23.3%) MB-TKAs recorded. We examined all-cause revision rates, reasons for revision and performed survival analyses. Results. For all-comers, MB-TKA had an all-cause revision rate of 0.43/100-component-years (OCY) compared with 0.42/OCY for FB-TKA (p=0.09). The all-cause revision rate was higher for those age < 65 years (MB TKA 0.60/OCY vs. FB-TKA 0.59/OCY) compared to those > 65 years at time of primary TKA (MB-TKA 0.29/OCY vs. FB-TKA 0.32/OCY), however there was no statistically significant difference between implant design in either age group (p=0.16 and p=0.64; respectively). Similarly, there was no difference in revision rates for aseptic loosening between implant designs. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis demonstrates no statistically significant difference in revision-free survival of implants, with both MB-TKA and FB-TKA demonstrating ∼93% revision free survival at 23 years. Conclusions. Both FB- and MB-TKA demonstrated excellent survivorship, with no significant difference in all-cause revision rates or revision for aseptic loosening between implant designs

The 2021 Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry report indicated that total shoulder replacement using both mid head (TMH) length humeral components and reverse arthroplasty (RTSA) had a lower revision rate than stemmed humeral components in anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) - for all prosthesis types and diagnoses. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of component variables in the various primary total arthroplasty alternatives for osteoarthritis in the shoulder. Data from a large national arthroplasty registry were analysed for the period April 2004 to December 2020. The study population included all primary aTSA, RTSA, and TMH shoulder arthroplasty procedures undertaken for osteoarthritis (OA) using either cross-linked polyethylene (XLPE) or non-cross-linked polyethylene (non XLPE). Due to the previously documented and reported higher revision rate compared to other anatomical total shoulder replacement options, those using a cementless metal backed glenoid components were excluded. The rate of revision was determined by Kaplan-Meir estimates, with comparisons by Cox proportional hazard models. Reasons for revision were also assessed. For a primary diagnosis of OA, aTSA with a cemented XLPE glenoid component had the lowest revision rate with a 12-year cumulative revision rate of 4.7%, compared to aTSA with cemented non-XLPE glenoid component of 8.7%, and RTSA of 6.8%. The revision rate for TMH was lower than aTSA with cemented non-XLPE, but was similar to the other implants at the same length of follow-up. The reason for revision for cemented aTSR was most commonly component loosening, not rotator cuff deficiency. Long stem humeral components matched with XLPE in aTSA achieve a lower revision rate compared to shorter stems, long stems with conventional polyethylene, and RTSA when used to treat shoulder OA. In all these cohorts, loosening, not rotator cuff failure was the most common diagnosis for revision

Aim. There is limited data on the frequency and impact of untoward events such as glove perforation, contamination of the surgical field (drape perforation, laceration, detachment), the unsterile object in the surgical field (hair, sweat droplet…), defecation, elevated air temperature…that may happen in the operating theatre. These events should influence the surgical site infection rate but it is not clear to what extent. We wanted to calculate the frequency and measure the impact of these events on the infection and general revision rate. Method. In our institution, scrub nurses prospectively and diligently record untoward events in the theatres. We have an institutional implant registry with close to 100% data completion since 2001, and surgeons register complications before discharge. We analysed the respective databases and compared the revision and infection rate in the group with untoward events with the outcome of all arthroplasty patients within the same period. Two-tailed Z statistical test was used for analysis. Results. Between 1.1.2012 and 31.12.2018 we operated 13574 prosthetic joints: 6232 primary THR (total hip replacement) and 5466 primary KR (total and partial knee replacement) and 1245 and 631 revisions respectively. During this period, we recorded 372 events (2.74%) including 20 (0.15 %) defecations, 40 (0.29 %) unsterile object in the surgical field, 73 (0.54%) field sterility violations, 45 (0.33 %) glove perforations, 45 (0.33 %) occasions with elevated air temperature, 106 (0.78%) with guests in the OR, 11 (0.08%) with wound near the surgical field, and 32 (0.24%) with other events. We followed the patients till 1.1.2022, in this time we recorded 27 (7.26%) reoperations in the cohort with untoward events. There were 9 (2.42%) infections and 18 (4.84%) aseptic revisions in the group with unwanted events. The infection rate for all TJR (total joint replacement) from the period 2012-2018, followed till 1.1.2022 was 2.23%, the revision rate for any reason was 4.37%. For all THR (primary and revision) the infection rate was 0.84%, the overall revision rate was 3.18% and for the KR (primary and revision) 1.71% and 5,82% respectively. The difference is significant at p>0.05 for infection rate. Conclusions. The potentially serious sterility disruptive events in the operative rooms did result in an increased infection rate but not an increase in revision rate. There is no data about the rate and the impact of these events besides for perforated surgical gloves with higher reported incidences than in our study influencing infection rate if perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis was not used. Ours is the first study reporting the impact of these unwanted events in the operating theatre. Key words. orthopaedic surgery, unwanted events, revision rate

Most previous studies investigating autograft options (quadriceps, hamstring, bone-patella-tendon-bone) in primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction are confounded by concomitant knee injuries. This study aims to investigate the differences in patient reported outcome measures and revision rates for quadriceps tendon in comparison with hamstring tendon and bone-patella-tendon-bone autografts. We use a cohort of patients who have had primary ACL reconstruction without concomitant knee injuries. All patients from the New Zealand ACL Registry who underwent a primary arthroscopic ACL reconstruction with minimum 2 year follow-up were considered for the study. Patients who had associated ipsilateral knee injuries, previous knee surgery, or open procedures were excluded. The primary outcome was Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) and MARX scores at 2 years post-surgery. Secondary outcomes were all-cause revision and time to revision with a total follow-up period of 8 years (time since inception of the registry). 2581 patients were included in the study; 1917 hamstring tendon, 557 bone-patella-tendon-bone, and 107 quadriceps tendon. At 2 years, no significant difference in MARX scores were found between the three groups (2y mean score; 7.36 hamstring, 7.85 bone-patella-tendon-bone, 8.05 quadriceps, P = 0.195). Further, no significant difference in KOOS scores were found between the three groups; with the exception of hamstring performing better than bone-patella-tendon-bone in the KOOS sports and recreation sub-score (2y mean score; 79.2 hamstring, 73.9 bone-patella-tendon-bone, P < 0.001). Similar revision rates were reported between all autograft groups (mean revision rate per 100 component years; 1.05 hamstring, 0.80 bone-patella-tendon-bone, 1.68 quadriceps, P = 0.083). Autograft revision rates were independent of age and gender variables. Quadriceps tendon is a comparable autograft choice to the status quo for primary ACL reconstruction without concomitant knee injury. Further research is required to quantify the long-term outcomes for quadriceps tendon use

Recent registry data from around the world has strongly suggested that using cemented hip hemiarthroplasty has lower revision rates compared to cementless hip hemiarthroplasty for acute femoral neck hip fractures. The adoption of using cemented hemiarthroplasty for hip fracture has been slow as many surgeons continue to use uncemented stems. One of the reasons is that surgeons feel more comfortable with uncemented hemiarthroplasty as they have used it routinely. The purpose of this study is to compare the difference in revision rates of cemented and cementless hemiarthroplasty and stratify the risk by surgeon experience. By using a surgeons annual volume of Total Hip Replacements performed as an indicator for surgeon experience. The Canadian Joint Replacement Registry Database was used to collect and compare the outcomes to report on the revision rates based on surgeon volume. This is a large Canadian Registry Study where 68447 patients were identified for having a hip hemiarthroplasty from 2012-2020. This is a retrospective cohort study, identifying patients that had cementless or cemented hip hemiarthroplasty. The surgeons who performed the procedures were linked to the procedure Total Hip Replacement. Individuals were categorized as experienced hip surgeons or not based on whether they performed 50 hip replacements a year. Identifying high volume surgeon (>50 cases/year) and low volume (<50 cases/year) surgeons. Hazard ratios adjusted for age and sex were performed for risk of revision over this 8-year span. A p-value <0.05 was deemed significant. For high volume surgeons, cementless fixation had a higher revision risk than cemented fixation, HR 1.29 (1.05-1.56), p=0.017. This pattern was similar for low volume surgeons, with cementless fixation having a higher revision risk than cemented fixation, HR 1.37 (1.11-1.70) p=0.004 We could not detect a difference in revision risk for cemented fixation between low volume and high volume surgeons; at 0-1.5 years the HR was 0.96 (0.72-1.28) p=0.786, and at 1.5+ years the HR was 1.61 (0.83-3.11) p=0.159. Similarly, we could not detect a difference in revision risk for cementless fixation between low volume and high volume surgeons, HR 1.11 (0.96-1.29) p=0.161. Using large registry data, cemented hip hemiarthroplasty has a significant lower revision rate than the use of cementless stems even when surgeons are stratified to high and low volume. Low volume surgeons who use uncemented prostheses have the highest rate of revision. The low volume hip surgeon who cements has a lower revision rate than the high volume cementless surgeon. The results of this study should help to guide surgeons that no matter the level of experience, using a cemented hip hemiarthroplasty for acute femoral neck fracture is the safest option. That high volume surgeons who perform cementless hemiarthroplasty are not immune to having revisions due to their technique. Increased training and education should be offered to surgeons to improve comfort when using this technique

Recent registry data from around the world has strongly suggested that using cemented hip hemiarthroplasty has lower revision rates compared to cementless hip hemiarthroplasty for acute femoral neck hip fractures. The adoption of using cemented hemiarthroplasty for hip fracture has been slow as many surgeons continue to use uncemented stems. One of the reasons is that surgeons feel more comfortable with uncemented hemiarthroplasty as they have used it routinely. The purpose of this study is to compare the difference in revision rates of cemented and cementless hemiarthroplasty and stratify the risk by surgeon experience. By using a surgeons annual volume of Total Hip Replacements performed as an indicator for surgeon experience. The Canadian Joint Replacement Registry Database was used to collect and compare the outcomes to report on the revision rates based on surgeon volume. This is a large Canadian Registry Study where 68447 patients were identified for having a hip hemiarthroplasty from 2012-2020. This is a retrospective cohort study, identifying patients that had cementless or cemented hip hemiarthroplasty. The surgeons who performed the procedures were linked to the procedure Total Hip Replacement. Individuals were categorized as experienced hip surgeons or not based on whether they performed 50 hip replacements a year. Identifying high volume surgeon (>50 cases/year) and low volume (<50 cases/year) surgeons. Hazard ratios adjusted for age and sex were performed for risk of revision over this 8-year span. A p-value <0.05 was deemed significant. For high volume surgeons, cementless fixation had a higher revision risk than cemented fixation, HR 1.29 (1.05-1.56), p=0.017. This pattern was similar for low volume surgeons, with cementless fixation having a higher revision risk than cemented fixation, HR 1.37 (1.11-1.70) p=0.004 We could not detect a difference in revision risk for cemented fixation between low volume and high volume surgeons; at 0-1.5 years the HR was 0.96 (0.72-1.28) p=0.786, and at 1.5+ years the HR was 1.61 (0.83-3.11) p=0.159. Similarly, we could not detect a difference in revision risk for cementless fixation between low volume and high volume surgeons, HR 1.11 (0.96-1.29) p=0.161. Using large registry data, cemented hip hemiarthroplasty has a significant lower revision rate than the use of cementless stems even when surgeons are stratified to high and low volume. Low volume surgeons who use uncemented prostheses have the highest rate of revision. The low volume hip surgeon who cements has a lower revision rate than the high volume cementless surgeon. The results of this study should help to guide surgeons that no matter the level of experience, using a cemented hip hemiarthroplasty for acute femoral neck fracture is the safest option. That high volume surgeons who perform cementless hemiarthroplasty are not immune to having revisions due to their technique. Increased training and education should be offered to surgeons to improve comfort when using this technique

The benefit of using acetabular screws in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) has been questioned in recent years. The disadvantages of using screws include increased operative time, risk of injury to surrounding neurovascular structures and metal ware breakage. Recent large registry studies have reported that screws do not confer a protective effect against acetabular loosening or the presence of osteolysis. Other studies have even described an increased risk of aseptic acetabular loosening with the selective use of screws. We report findings from a multicentre cohort study. This large cohort study compared clinical outcomes between primary acetabular components that were inserted with and without screws. Independent variables included the presence (or absence) of screws, the total number of screws used and the cumulative screw length (CSL). Outcome measures included all-cause revision, acetabular component revision and acetabular component loosening. Statistical software (Stata/IC 13.1 for Mac [64-bit Intel]) was used to conduct all statistical analyses. A p-value < 0 .05 taken to be significant. There were 4,583 THAs performed in total. Screws were used in 15.9% (n=733). At a mean follow-up of 5.2 years, the all-cause revision rate in the screw cohort was 1.5% compared to 0.83% in the no screw cohort (p=0.085). There was no difference in acetabular component revision rates for screws (3/733, 0.41%) versus no screws (12/3,850, 0.31%) (p=0.439). The rate of acetabular loosening noted during the time of revision surgery was significantly higher when screws were used in the index procedure (2/733, 0.2%) compared to the no screw cohort (1/3,850, 0.02%) (p=0.017). There was no difference in outcomes when stratifying by the number of screws used or the cumulative screw length. Primary acetabular components do not require screws for fixation. All cause revision rates and acetabular component revision rates are comparable for the screw and the no screw cohorts. The rate of acetabular component loosening, as observed during revision surgery, is significantly higher when screws are used in the index total hip replacement

In Australia nearly two-thirds of arthroplasty procedures are performed in the private setting, which is disproportionate to the dimensioning 43.5% of the population with private health cover. The rapid growth of shoulder arthroplasty surgery will be absorbed by both private and public sectors. This study aimed to assess the influence of healthcare setting on elective shoulder arthroplasty outcomes, defined by revision rate, and functional measures. Data was collected on all primary procedures performed from 2004 – 2019 within a regional area of Victoria, Australia. Patients were categorised into private or public settings. Trauma cases for acute proximal humerus fractures were excluded. The primary outcome of revision surgery was recorded as a cumulative percentage, and survival analysis conducted to calculate a hazard ratio (HR). Functional outcomes were measured through range-of-motion (ROM) and multiple validated patient-reported-outcome-measures (PROMs). 458 patients were identified in the study: 290 private and 168 public. There was no difference in the revision rate (3.8% private, 4.8% public), with an adjusted HR of 1.25 (p=0.66) for public compared to private. Baseline and post-operative functional measures were significantly greater in the private setting for ROMs and PROMs analysis, in particular post-operative QuickDASH (15.9±14.7 to 32.7±23.5; p<0.001) and Oxford Shoulder Score (42.6±6.3 to 35.7±11.2; p<0.001). However, there was no significant difference for any of the functional measures in the amount of change from baseline to 12-months between settings. Although healthcare setting does not appear to influence revision rate for shoulder arthroplasty, clear differences were demonstrated for functional measures both pre and post operatively. This may be attributed to factors such as access to perioperative rehabilitation and should be an area to target future investigations

Background. Increasing evidence suggests a link between the bearing surface used in total hip arthroplasty (THA) and the occurrence of infection. It is postulated that polyethylene has immunomodulatory effects and may influence bacterial function and survival, thereby impacting the development of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). This study aimed to investigate the association between polyethylene type and revision surgery for PJI in THA using data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR). We hypothesized that the use of XLPE would demonstrate a statistically significant reduction in revision rates due to PJI compared to N-XLPE. Methods. Data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) spanning September 1, 1999, to December 31, 2021, were used to compare the infection revision rates between THA using N-XLPE and XLPE. We calculated the Cumulative Percentage Revision rate (CPR) and Hazard Ratio (HR) while controlling for factors like age, sex, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiologists’ (ASA) grade, and head size. Results. From the total 361,083 primary THAs, 26,827 used N-XLPE and 334,256 used XLPE. Excluding data from the first 6 months post-surgery, 220 revisions occurred in the N-XLPE group and 1,055 in the XLPE group for PJI. The HR for infection revision was significantly higher in N-XLPE compared to XLPE, at 1.64 (95% CI, 1.41–1.90, p<0.001). Conclusions. This analysis provides evidence of an association between N-XLPE and revision for infection in THA. We suspect that polyethylene wear particles contribute to the susceptibility of THA to PJI, resulting in a significantly higher risk of revision for infection in N-XLPE hips compared to those with XLPE. Level of Evidence. Therapeutic Level III

Strategy regarding patella resurfacing in total knee replacement (TKR) remains controversial. TKR revision rates are reportedly influenced by surgeon procedure volume. The study aim was to compare revision outcomes of TKR with and without patella resurfacing in different surgeon volume groups using data from the AOANJRR. The study population included 571,149 primary TKRs for osteoarthritis. Surgeons were classified as low, medium, or high-volume based on the quartiles of mean primary TKR volume between 2011 and 2020. Cumulative percent revision (CPR) using Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship were calculated for the three surgeon volume groups with and without patella resurfacing. Cox proportional hazards models, adjusted for age and sex, were used to compare revision risks. High-volume surgeons who did not resurface the patella had the highest all-cause CPR (20-year CPR 10.9%, 95% CI [10.0%, 12.0%]). When the patella was resurfaced, high-volume surgeons had the lowest revision rate (7.3%, 95% CI [6.4%, 8.4%]). When the high-volume groups were compared there was a higher rate of revision for the non-resurfaced group after 6 months. When the medium-volume surgeon groups were compared, not resurfacing the patella also was associated with a higher rate of revision after 3 months. The low-volume comparisons showed an initial higher rate of revision with patella resurfacing, but there was no difference after 3 months. When only patella revisions were considered, there were higher rates of revision in all three volume groups where the patella was not resurfaced. TKR performed by high and medium-volume surgeons without patella resurfacing had higher revision rates compared to when the patella was resurfaced. Resurfacing the patella in the primary procedure protected against revision for patella reasons in all surgeon volume groups. Level of evidence: III (National registry analysis)

Our objective was to examine revision rates and patient reported outcome scores (PROMS) for cemented and uncemented primary total knee joint replacement (TKJR) at six months, one year and five years post-operatively. Patients and Methods: This matched cohort study involved secondary analyses of data collected as part of a large prospective observational study monitoring outcomes following knee replacement in Christchurch, New Zealand. Cemented and uncemented TKJR participants (n = 1526) were matched on age (± 5 years), sex and body mass index (BMI). From this larger sample, PROMS data, Oxford Knee Score and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), out to five years post-operatively were analysed for a matched subset of participants (n = 252). The average age of participants was 67.9 years (SD 9.4, range 38-94). There were no differences between cemented and uncemented cohorts on the basis of age, sex, BMI or comorbidities, revision rates or PROMS outcomes. Cemented procedures had greater skin to skin times than uncemented procedures (p < 0.01). Unadjusted outcomes comparing risk for revision across the two participant cohorts did not significantly differ. Overall rates for revision were low (cemented 3.2% v uncemented 2.7%, p=0.70). Propensity adjusted associations between baseline characteristics (age, sex, BMI, comorbidity, baseline Oxford and baseline WOMAC scores) also revealed no differences in risk for revision at any post-operative timepoint. In this large multi-surgeon matched cohort study there were no significant differences in functional outcomes or revision rates, when outcomes following modern cemented and uncemented TKJR were compared out to 5-year follow up. Based on our findings, uncemented TKJR is predictable irrespective of patient's age, BMI or gender

Rates of prosthetic joint infection in megaprostheses are high. The application of silver ion coating to implants serves as a deterrent to infection and biofilm formation. A retrospective review was performed of all silver-coated MUTARS endoprosthetic reconstructions (SC-EPR) by a single Orthopaedic Oncology Surgeon. We examined the rate of component revision due to infection and the rate of infection successfully treated with antibiotic therapy. We reviewed overall revision rates, sub-categorised into the Henderson groupings for endoprosthesis modes of failure (Type 1 soft tissue failure, Type 2 aseptic loosening, Type 3 Structural failure, Type 4 Infection, Type 5 tumour progression). 283 silver-coated MUTARS endoprosthetic reconstructions were performed for 229 patients from October 2012 to July 2022. The average age at time of surgery was 58.9 years and 53% of our cohort were males. 154 (71.3%) patients underwent SC-EPR for oncological reconstruction and 32 (14.8%) for reconstruction for bone loss following prosthetic joint infection(s). Proximal femur SC-EPR (82) and distal femur (90) were the most common procedures. This cohort had an overall revision rate of 21.2% (60/283 cases). Component revisions were most commonly due to Type 4 infection (19 cases), Type 2 aseptic loosening/culture negative disease (15 cases), and Type 1 dislocation/soft tissue (12 cases). Component revision rate for infection was 6.7% (19 cases). 15 underwent exchange of implants and 4 underwent transfemoral amputation due to recalcitrant infection and failure of soft tissue coverage. This equates to a limb salvage rate of 98.3%. The most common causative organisms remain staphylococcus species (47%) and polymicrobial infections (40%). We expand on the existing literature advocating for the use of silver-coated endoprosthetic reconstructions. We provide insights from the vast experience of a single surgeon when addressing patients with oncological and bone loss-related complex reconstruction problems