Aims

Total hip arthroplasties (THAs) are performed by surgeons at various stages in training with varying levels of supervision, but we do not know if this is safe practice with comparable outcomes to consultant-performed THA. Our aim was to examine the association between surgeon grade, the senior supervision of trainees, and the risk of revision following THA.

Aims

The aim of this study was to determine the long-term mortality rate, and to identify factors associated with this, following primary and revision knee arthroplasty (KA).

It is unclear whether there is a limit to the amount of distal bone required to support fixation of supracondylar periprosthetic femoral fractures. This retrospective multicentre study evaluated lateral locked plating of periprosthetic supracondylar femoral fractures and compared the results according to extension of the fracture distal with the proximal border of the femoral prosthetic component. Between 1999 and 2008, 89 patients underwent lateral locked plating of a supracondylar periprosthetic femoral fracture, of whom 61 patients with a mean age of 72 years (42 to 96) comprising 53 women, were available after a minimum follow-up of six months or until fracture healing. Patients were grouped into those with fractures located proximally (28) and those with fractures that extended distal to the proximal border of the femoral component (33). Delayed healing and nonunion occurred respectively in five (18%) and three (11%) of more proximal fractures, and in two (6%) and five (15%) of the fractures with distal extension (p = 0.23 for delayed healing; p = 0.72 for nonunion, Fisher’s exact test). Four construct failures (14%) occurred in more proximal fractures, and three (9%) in fractures with distal extension (p = 0.51). Of the two deep infections that occurred in each group, one resolved after surgical debridement and antibiotics, and one progressed to a nonunion. Extreme distal periprosthetic supracondylar fractures of the femur are not a contra-indication to lateral locked plating. These fractures can be managed with internal fixation, with predictable results, similar to those seen in more proximal fractures

The February 2024 Hip & Pelvis Roundup. 360. looks at: Trial of vancomycin and cefazolin as surgical prophylaxis in arthroplasty; Is preoperative posterior femoral neck tilt a risk factor for fixation failure? Cemented versus uncemented hemiarthroplasty for displaced intracapsular fractures of the hip; Periprosthetic fractures in larger hydroxyapatite-coated stems: are collared stems a better alternative for total hip arthroplasty?; Postoperative periprosthetic fracture following hip arthroplasty with a polished taper slip versus composite beam stem; Is oral tranexamic acid as good as intravenous?; Stem design and the risk of early periprosthetic femur fractures following THA in elderly patients; Does powered femoral broaching compromise patient safety in total hip arthroplasty?

Aims. This study reports the results of 38 total hip arthroplasties (THAs) in 33 patients aged less than 50 years, using the JRI Furlong hydroxyapatite ceramic (HAC)-coated femoral component. Methods. We describe the survival, radiological, and functional outcomes of 33 patients (38 THAs) at a mean follow-up of 27 years (25 to 32) between 1988 and 2018. Results. Of the surviving 30 patients (34 THAs), there were four periprosthetic fractures: one underwent femoral revision after 21 years, two had surgical fixation as the stem was deemed stable, and one was treated nonoperatively due to the patient’s comorbidities. The periprosthetic fracture patients showed radiological evidence of change in bone stock around the femoral stem, which may have contributed to the fractures; this was reflected in change of the canal flare index at the proximal femur. Two patients (two hips) were lost to follow-up. Using aseptic loosening as the endpoint, 16 patients (18 hips; 48%) needed acetabular revision. None of the femoral components were revised for aseptic loosening, demonstrating 100% survival. The estimate of the cumulative proportion surviving for revisions due to any cause was 0.97 (standard error 0.03). Conclusion. In young patients with high demands, the Furlong HAC-coated femoral component gives excellent long-term results. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(4):286–293

Aims. Nonagenarians (aged 90 to 99 years) have experienced the fastest percent decile population growth in the USA recently, with a consequent increase in the prevalence of nonagenarians living with joint arthroplasties. As such, the number of revision total hip arthroplasties (THAs) and total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) in nonagenarians is expected to increase. We aimed to determine the mortality rate, implant survivorship, and complications of nonagenarians undergoing aseptic revision THAs and revision TKAs. Methods. Our institutional total joint registry was used to identify 96 nonagenarians who underwent 97 aseptic revisions (78 hips and 19 knees) between 1997 and 2018. The most common indications were aseptic loosening and periprosthetic fracture for both revision THAs and revision TKAs. Mean age at revision was 92 years (90 to 98), mean BMI was 27 kg/m. 2. (16 to 47), and 67% (n = 65) were female. Mean time between primary and revision was 18 years (SD 9). Kaplan-Meier survival was used for patient mortality, and compared to age- and sex-matched control populations. Reoperation risk was assessed using cumulative incidence with death as a competing risk. Mean follow-up was five years. Results. Mortality rates were 9%, 18%, 26%, and 62% at 90 days, one year, two years, and five years, respectively, but similar to control populations. There were 43 surgical complications and five reoperations, resulting in a cumulative incidence of reoperation of 4% at five years. Medical complications were common, with a cumulative incidence of 65% at 90 days. Revisions for periprosthetic fractures were associated with higher mortality and higher 90-day risk of medical complications compared to revisions for aseptic loosening. Conclusion. Contemporary revision THAs and TKAs appeared to be relatively safe in selected nonagenarians managed with multidisciplinary teams. Cause of revision affected morbidity and mortality risks. While early medical and surgical complications were frequent, they seldom resulted in reoperation. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(6):649–656

Aims. Knowledge on total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) in patients with a history of poliomyelitis is limited. This study compared implant survivorship and clinical outcomes among affected and unaffected limbs in patients with sequelae of poliomyelitis undergoing TKAs. Methods. A retrospective review of our total joint registry identified 94 patients with post-polio syndrome undergoing 116 primary TKAs between January 2000 and December 2019. The mean age was 70 years (33 to 86) with 56% males (n = 65) and a mean BMI of 31 kg/m. 2. (18 to 49). Rotating hinge TKAs were used in 14 of 63 affected limbs (22%), but not in any of the 53 unaffected limbs. Kaplan-Meier survivorship analyses were completed. The mean follow-up was eight years (2 to 19). Results. The ten-year survivorship free from revision was 91% (95% confidence interval (CI) 81 to 100) in affected and 84% (95% CI 68 to 100) in unaffected limbs. There were six revisions in affected limbs: three for periprosthetic femoral fractures and one each for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), patellar clunk syndrome, and instability. Unaffected limbs were revised in four cases: two for instability and one each for PJI and tibial component loosening. The ten-year survivorship free from any reoperation was 86% (95% CI 75 to 97) and 80% (95% CI 64 to 99) in affected and unaffected limbs, respectively. There were three additional reoperations among affected and two in unaffected limbs. There were 12 nonoperative complications, including four periprosthetic fractures. Arthrofibrosis occurred in five affected (8%) and two unaffected limbs (4%). Postoperative range of motion decreased with 31% achieving less than 90° knee flexion by five years. Conclusion. TKAs in post-polio patients are complex cases associated with instability, and one in four require constraint on the affected side. Periprosthetic fracture was the main mode of failure. Arthrofibrosis rates were high and twice as frequent in affected limbs. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(6):635–640

Aims. The aim of this study was to compare open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with revision surgery for the surgical management of Unified Classification System (UCS) type B periprosthetic femoral fractures around cemented polished taper-slip femoral components following primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). Methods. Data were collected for patients admitted to five UK centres. The primary outcome measure was the two-year reoperation rate. Secondary outcomes were time to surgery, transfusion requirements, critical care requirements, length of stay, two-year local complication rates, six-month systemic complication rates, and mortality rates. Comparisons were made by the form of treatment (ORIF vs revision) and UCS type (B1 vs B2/B3). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed with two-year reoperation for any reason as the endpoint. Results. A total of 317 periprosthetic fractures (in 317 patients) with a median follow-up of 3.6 years (interquartile range (IQR) 2.0 to 5.4) were included. The fractures were type B1 in 133 (42.0%), B2 in 170 (53.6%), and B3 in 14 patients (4.4%). ORIF was performed in 167 (52.7%) and revision in 150 patients (47.3%). The two-year reoperation rate (15.3% vs 7.2%; p = 0.021), time to surgery (4.0 days (IQR 2.0 to 7.0) vs 2.0 days (IQR 1.0 to 4.0); p < 0.001), transfusion requirements (55 patients (36.7%) vs 42 patients (25.1%); p = 0.026), critical care requirements (36 patients (24.0%) vs seven patients (4.2%); p < 0.001) and two-year local complication rates (26.7% vs 9.0%; p < 0.001) were significantly higher in the revision group. The two-year rate of survival was significantly higher for ORIF (91.9% (standard error (SE) 0.023%) vs 83.9% (SE 0.031%); p = 0.032) compared with revision. For B1 fractures, the two-year reoperation rate was significantly higher for revision compared with ORIF (29.4% vs 6.0%; p = 0.002) but this was similar for B2 and B3 fractures (9.8% vs 13.5%; p = 0.341). The most common indication for reoperation after revision was dislocation (12 patients; 8.0%). Conclusion. Revision surgery has higher reoperation rates, longer surgical waiting times, higher transfusion requirements, and higher critical care requirements than ORIF in the management of periprosthetic fractures around polished taper-slip femoral components after THA. ORIF is a safe option providing anatomical reconstruction is achievable. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(2):124–134

Aims. Medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (mUKA) is an advised treatment for anteromedial knee osteoarthritis. While long-term survival after mUKA is well described, reported incidences of short-term surgical complications vary and the effect of surgical usage on complications is less established. We aimed to describe the overall occurrence and treatment of surgical complications within 90 days of mUKA, as well as occurrence in high-usage centres compared to low-usage centres. Methods. mUKAs performed in eight fast-track centres from February 2010 to June 2018 were included from the Lundbeck Foundation Centre for Fast-track Hip and Knee Replacement Database. All readmissions within 90 days of surgery underwent chart review and readmissions related to the surgical wound or the prosthesis were recorded. Centres were categorized as high-usage centres when using mUKA in ≥ 20% of annual knee arthroplasties. The occurrence of complications between high- and low-usage centres were compared using Fisher’s exact test. Results. We included 3,757 mUKAs: 2,377 mUKAs from high-usage centres and 1,380 mUKAs from low-usage centres. Surgical complications within 90 days occurred in 69 cases (1.8%), 45 (1.9%) in high-usage centres and 24 (1.7%) in low-usage centres (odds ratio (OR) 1.1 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65 to 1.8)). The most frequent complications were periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) (n = 18; 0.48%), wound-related issues (n = 14; 0.37%), and periprosthetic fractures (n = 13; 0.35%). Bearing dislocations (n = 7; 0.19%) occurred primarily in procedures from high-usage centres. In high-usage centres, seven periprosthetic fractures (0.29%) occurred compared to six (0.43%) in low-usage centres (OR 0.68 (95% CI 0.20 to 2.0)). In high-usage centres, nine PJIs (0.38%) occurred compared to nine (0.65%) in low-usage centres (OR 0.58 (95% CI 0.22 to 1.6)). Conclusion. Surgical complications are rare after fast-track mUKA surgery and with no difference in overall occurrence of surgical complications between high- and low-usage centres, although the risk of some specific surgical complications may favour high-usage centres. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(6):457–462

Aims. Periprosthetic fracture and implant loosening are two of the major reasons for revision surgery of cementless implants. Optimal implant fixation with minimal bone damage is challenging in this procedure. This pilot study investigates whether vibratory implant insertion is gentler compared to consecutive single blows for acetabular component implantation in a surrogate polyurethane (PU) model. Methods. Acetabular components (cups) were implanted into 1 mm nominal under-sized cavities in PU foams (15 and 30 per cubic foot (PCF)) using a vibratory implant insertion device and an automated impaction device for single blows. The impaction force, remaining polar gap, and lever-out moment were measured and compared between the impaction methods. Results. Impaction force was reduced by 89% and 53% for vibratory insertion in 15 and 30 PCF foams, respectively. Both methods positioned the component with polar gaps under 2 mm in 15 PCF foam. However, in 30 PCF foam, the vibratory insertion resulted in a clinically undesirable polar gap of over 2 mm. A higher lever-out moment was achieved with the consecutive single blow insertion by 42% in 15 PCF and 2.7 times higher in 30 PCF foam. Conclusion. Vibratory implant insertion may lower periprosthetic fracture risk by reducing impaction forces, particularly in low-quality bone. Achieving implant seating using vibratory insertion requires adjustment of the nominal press-fit, especially in denser bone. Further preclinical testing on real bone tissue is necessary to assess whether its viscoelasticity in combination with an adjusted press-fit can compensate for the reduced primary stability after vibratory insertion observed in this study. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2024;13(6):272–278

Aims. Despite multiple trials and case series on hip hemiarthroplasty designs, guidance is still lacking on which implant to use. One particularly deficient area is long-term outcomes. We present over 1,000 consecutive cemented Thompson’s hemiarthroplasties over a ten-year period, recording all accessible patient and implant outcomes. Methods. Patient identifiers for a consecutive cohort treated between 1 January 2003 and 31 December 2011 were linked to radiographs, surgical notes, clinic letters, and mortality data from a national dataset. This allowed charting of their postoperative course, complications, readmissions, returns to theatre, revisions, and deaths. We also identified all postoperative attendances at the Emergency and Outpatient Departments, and recorded any subsequent skeletal injuries. Results. In total, 1,312 Thompson’s hemiarthroplasties were analyzed (mean age at surgery 82.8 years); 125 complications were recorded, necessitating 82 returns to theatre. These included 14 patients undergoing aspiration or manipulation under anaesthesia, 68 reoperations (5.2%) for debridement and implant retention (n = 12), haematoma evacuation (n = 2), open reduction for dislocation (n = 1), fixation of periprosthetic fracture (n = 5), and 48 revised stems (3.7%), for infection (n = 13), dislocation (n = 12), aseptic loosening (n = 9), persistent pain (n = 6), periprosthetic fracture (n = 4), acetabular erosion (n = 3), and metastatic bone disease (n = 1). Their status at ten years is summarized as follows: 1,180 (89.9%) dead without revision, 34 (2.6%) dead having had revision, 84 (6.6%) alive with the stem unrevised, and 14 (1.1%) alive having had revision. Cumulative implant survivorship was 90.3% at ten years; patient survivorship was 7.4%. Conclusion. The Thompson’s stem demonstrates very low rates of complications requiring reoperation and revision, up to ten years after the index procedure. Fewer than one in ten patients live for ten years after fracture. This study supports the use of a cemented Thompson’s implant as a cost-effective option for frail hip fracture patients. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(9):710–715

Aims. With increasing burden of revision hip arthroplasty (THA), one of the major challenges is the management of proximal femoral bone loss associated with previous multiple surgeries. Proximal femoral arthroplasty (PFA) has already been popularized for tumour surgeries. Our aim was to describe the outcome of using PFA in these demanding non-neoplastic cases. Methods. A retrospective review of 25 patients who underwent PFA for non-neoplastic indications between January 2009 and December 2015 was undertaken. Their clinical and radiological outcome, complication rates, and survival were recorded. All patients had the Stanmore Implant – Modular Endo-prosthetic Tumour System (METS). Results. At mean follow-up of 5.9 years, there were no periprosthetic fractures. Clearance of infection was achieved in 63.6% of cases. One hip was re-revised to pseudo arthroplasty for deep infection. Instability was noted in eight of the hips (32%), of which seven needed further surgery. Out of these eight hips with instability, five had preoperative infection. Deep infection was noted in five of the hips (20%), of which four were primarily revised for infection. One patient had aseptic loosening of the femoral component and awaits revision surgery. The Kaplan-Meier survivorship free of revision of any component for any reason was 72% (95% confidence interval (CI) 51.3% to 92.7%), and for revisions of only femoral component for any reason was 96% (95% CI 86.3% to 105.7%) at five years. Conclusion. Dislocation and infection remain the major cause for failure, particularly in patients with pre-existing infection. The use of dual mobility cups, silver-coated implants, and less aggressive postoperative rehabilitation regimens would possibly aid in the reduction of complications. PFA performed in patients with periprosthetic fracture seem to fair better. This study supports the judicious use of PFA in non-oncological revision hip arthroplasties, and that they be performed by experienced revision arthroplasty surgeons. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(3):229–235

The June 2024 Knee Roundup. 360. looks at: The estimated lifetime risk of revision after primary knee arthroplasty influenced by age, sex, and indication; Should high-risk patients seek out care from high-volume surgeons?; Stability and fracture rates in medial unicondylar knee arthroplasties; Rethinking antibiotic prophylaxis for dental procedures post-arthroplasty; Evaluating DAIR: a viable alternative for acute periprosthetic joint infection; The characteristics and predictors of mortality in periprosthetic fractures around the knee; Patient health-related quality of life deteriorates significantly while waiting six to 12 months for total hip or knee arthroplasty; The importance of looking for diversity in knee implants

The April 2023 Hip & Pelvis Roundup. 360. looks at: Do technical errors determine outcomes of operatively managed femoral neck fractures in younger adults?; Single-stage or two-stage revision for hip prosthetic joint infection (INFORM); Fixation better than revision in type B periprosthetic fractures of taper slip stems; Can you maximize femoral head size at the expense of liner thickness?; Plasma D-dimer for periprosthetic joint infection?; How important is in vivo oxidation?; Total hip arthroplasty for HIV patients with osteonecrosis

Aims. This study aimed to investigate the optimal sagittal positioning of the uncemented femoral component in total knee arthroplasty to minimize the risk of aseptic loosening and periprosthetic fracture. Methods. Ten different sagittal placements of the femoral component, ranging from -5 mm (causing anterior notch) to +4 mm (causing anterior gap), were analyzed using finite element analysis. Both gait and squat loading conditions were simulated, and Von Mises stress and interface micromotion were evaluated to assess fracture and loosening risk. Results. During gait, varied sagittal positioning did not lead to excessive Von Mises stress or micromotion. However, under squat conditions, posterior positioning (-4 and -5 mm) resulted in stress exceeding 150 MPa at the femoral notch, indicating potential fracture risk. Conversely, +1 mm and 0 mm sagittal positions demonstrated minimal interface micromotion. Conclusion. Slightly anterior sagittal positioning (+1 mm) or neutral positioning (0 mm) effectively reduced stress concentration at the femoral notch and minimized interface micromotion. Thus, these positions are deemed suitable to decrease the risk of aseptic loosening and periprosthetic femoral fracture

Aims. The aim of this study was to conduct a cross-sectional, observational cohort study of patients presenting for revision of a total hip, or total or unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, to understand current routes to revision surgery and explore differences in symptoms, healthcare use, reason for revision, and the revision surgery (surgical time, components, length of stay) between patients having regular follow-up and those without. Methods. Data were collected from participants and medical records for the 12 months prior to revision. Patients with previous revision, metal-on-metal articulations, or hip hemiarthroplasty were excluded. Participants were retrospectively classified as ‘Planned’ or ‘Unplanned’ revision. Multilevel regression and propensity score matching were used to compare the two groups. Results. Data were analyzed from 568 patients, recruited in 38 UK secondary care sites between October 2017 and October 2018 (43.5% male; mean (SD) age 71.86 years (9.93); 305 hips, 263 knees). No significant inclusion differences were identified between the two groups. For hip revision, time to revision > ten years (odds ratio (OR) 3.804, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.353 to 10.694), p = 0.011), periprosthetic fracture (OR 20.309, 95% CI (4.574 to 90.179), p < 0.001), and dislocation (OR 12.953, 95% CI (4.014 to 41.794), p < 0.001), were associated with unplanned revision. For knee, there were no associations with route to revision. Revision after ten years was more likely for those who were younger at primary surgery, regardless of route to revision. No significant differences in cost outcomes, length of surgery time, and access to a health professional in the year prior to revision were found between the two groups. When periprosthetic fractures, dislocations, and infections were excluded, healthcare use was significantly higher in the unplanned revision group. Conclusion. Differences between characteristics for patients presenting for planned and unplanned revision are minimal. Although there was greater healthcare use in those having unplanned revision, it appears unlikely that routine orthopaedic review would have detected many of these issues. It may be safe to disinvest in standard follow-up provided there is rapid access to orthopaedic review. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(1):59–67

The December 2022 Hip & Pelvis Roundup. 360. looks at: Fix and replace: simultaneous fracture fixation and hip arthroplasty for acetabular fractures in older patients; Is the revision rate for femoral neck fracture lower for total hip arthroplasty than for hemiarthroplasty?; Femoral periprosthetic fractures: data from the COMPOSE cohort study; Dual-mobility cups and fracture of the femur; What’s the deal with outcomes for hip and knee arthroplasty outcomes internationally?; Osteochondral lesions of the femoral head: is costal cartilage the answer?