Aims. To compare rates of serious adverse events in patients undergoing revision knee arthroplasty with consideration of the indication for revision (urgent versus elective indications), and compare these with primary arthroplasty and re-revision arthroplasty. Methods. Patients undergoing primary knee arthroplasty were identified in the national Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) between 1 April 1997 to 31 March 2017. Subsequent revision and re-revision arthroplasty procedures in the same patients and same knee were identified. The primary outcome was 90-day mortality and a logistic regression model was used to investigate factors associated with 90-day mortality and secondary adverse outcomes, including infection (undergoing surgery), pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, and stroke. Urgent indications for revision arthroplasty were defined as infection or fracture, and all other indications (e.g. loosening, instability, wear) were included in the elective indications cohort. Results. A total of 939,021 primary knee arthroplasty procedures were included (939,021 patients), of which 40,854 underwent subsequent revision arthroplasty, and 9,100 underwent re-revision arthroplasty. Revision surgery for elective indications was associated with a 90-day rate of mortality of 0.44% (135/30,826; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.37 to 0.52) which was comparable to primary knee arthroplasty (0.46%; 4,292/939,021; 95% CI 0.44 to 0.47). Revision arthroplasty for infection was associated with a much higher mortality of 2.04% (184/9037; 95% CI 1.75 to 2.35; odds ratio (OR) 3.54; 95% CI 2.81 to 4.46), as was revision for periprosthetic fracture at 5.25% (52/991; 95% CI 3.94 to 6.82; OR 6.23; 95% CI 4.39 to 8.85). Higher rates of pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, and stroke were also observed in the infection and fracture cohort. Conclusion. Patients undergoing revision arthroplasty for urgent indications (infection or fracture) are at higher risk of mortality and serious adverse events in comparison to primary knee arthroplasty and revision arthroplasty for elective indications. These findings will be important for patient consent and shared decision-making and should inform service design for this patient cohort. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(10):1578–1585

Aims. The aim of this study was to report the incidence of implant-related complications, further operations, and their influence on the outcome in a series of patients who underwent primary reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA). Methods. The prospectively collected clinical and radiological data of 797 patients who underwent 854 primary RTSAs between January 2005 and August 2018 were analyzed. The hypothesis was that the presence of complications would adversely affect the outcome. Further procedures were defined as all necessary operations, including reoperations without change of components, and partial or total revisions. The clinical outcome was evaluated using the absolute and relative Constant Scores (aCS, rCS), the Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV) scores, range of motion, and pain. Results. The overall surgical site complication rate was 22% (188 complications) in 152 patients (156 RTSAs; 18%) at a mean follow-up of 46 months (0 to 169). The most common complications were acromial fracture (in 44 patients, 45 RTSAs; 5.3%), glenoid loosening (in 37 patients, 37 RTSAs; 4.3%), instability (in 23 patients, 23 RTSAs; 2.7%), humeral fracture or loosening of the humeral component (in 21 patients, 21 RTSAs; 2.5%), and periprosthetic infection (in 14 patients, 14 RTSAs; 1.6%). Further surgery was undertaken in 79 patients (82 RTSAs) requiring a total of 135 procedures (41% revision rate). The most common indications for further surgery were glenoid-related complications (in 23 patients, 23 RTSAs; 2.7%), instability (in 15 patients, 15 RTSAs; 1.8%), acromial fractures (in 11 patients, 11 RTSAs; 1.3%), pain and severe scarring (in 13 patients, 13 RTSAs; 1.5%), and infection (in 8 patients, 8 RTSAs; 0.9%). Patients who had a complication had significantly worse mean rCS scores (57% (SD 24%) vs 81% (SD 16%)) and SSV scores (53% (SD 27%) vs 80% (SD 20%)) compared with those without a complication. If revision surgery was necessary, the outcome was even further compromised (mean rCS score: 51% (SD 23%) vs 63% (SD 23%); SSV score: 4% (SD 25%) vs 61% (SD 27%). Conclusion. Although the indications for, and use of, a RTSA are increasing, it remains a demanding surgical procedure. We found that about one in five patients had a complication and one in ten required further surgery. Both adversely affected the outcome. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(3):401–407

We analysed the results of different strategies in the revision of primary uncemented acetabular components reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. The aim was to compare the risk of further acetabular revision after isolated liner exchange and complete component revision. The results of exchanging well-fixed components were also compared with those of exchanging loose acetabular components. The period studied was between September 1987 and April 2005. The following groups were compared: group 1, exchange of liner only in 318 hips; group 2, exchange of well-fixed components in 398; and group 3, exchange of loose components in 933. We found that the risk of a further cup revision was lower after revision of well-fixed components (relative risk from a Cox model (RR) = 0.56, 95% confidence interval 0.37% to 0.87%) and loose components (RR = 0.56, 95% confidence interval 0.39% to 0.80%), compared with exchange of the liner in isolation. The most frequent reason for a further acetabular revision was dislocation, accounting for 61 (28%) of the re-revisions. Other reasons for further revision included pain in 27 (12%), loosening in 24 (11%) and infection in 20 (9%). Re-revisions because of pain were less frequent when complete component (fixed or loose) revision was undertaken compared with isolated exchange of the liner (RR = 0.20 (95% confidence interval 0.06% to 0.65%) and RR = 0.10 (95% confidence interval 0.03% to 0.30%), respectively). The risk of further acetabular revision for infection, however, did not differ between the groups. In this study, exchange of the liner only had a higher risk of further cup revision than revision of the complete acetabular component. Our results suggest that the threshold for revising well-fixed components in the case of liner wear and osteolysis should be lowered

Aims. The aim of this study was to compare ten-year longitudinal healthcare costs and revision rates for patients undergoing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Methods. The Humana database was used to compare 2,383 patients undergoing UKA between 2007 and 2009, who were matched 1:1 from a cohort of 63,036 patients undergoing primary TKA based on age, sex, and Elixhauser Comorbidity Index. Medical and surgical complications were tracked longitudinally for one year following surgery. Rates of revision surgery and cumulative mean healthcare costs were recorded for this period of time and compared between the cohorts. Results. Patients undergoing TKA had significantly higher rates of manipulation under anaesthesia (3.9% vs 0.9%; p < 0.001), deep vein thrombosis (5.0% vs 3.1%; p < 0.001), pulmonary embolism (1.5% vs 0.8%; p = 0.001), and renal failure (4.2% vs 2.2%; p < 0.001). Revision rates, however, were significantly higher for UKA at five years (6.0% vs 4.2%; p = 0.007) and ten years postoperatively (6.5% vs 4.4%; p = 0.002). Longitudinal-related healthcare costs for patients undergoing TKA were greater than for those undergoing UKA at one year ($24,771 vs $22,071; p < 0.001) and five years following surgery ($26,549 vs $25,730; p < 0.001); however, the mean costs of TKA were comparable to UKA at ten years ($26,877 vs $26,891; p = 0.425). Conclusion. Despite higher revision rates, patients undergoing UKA had lower mean healthcare costs than those undergoing TKA up to ten years following the procedure, at which time costs were comparable. In the era of value-based care, surgeons and policymakers should be aware of the costs involved with these procedures. UKA was associated with fewer complications at one year postoperatively but higher revision rates at five and ten years. While UKA was significantly less costly than TKA at one and five years, costs at ten years were comparable with a mean difference of only $14. Lowering the risk of revision surgery should be targeted as a source of cost savings for both UKA and TKA as the mean related healthcare costs were 2.5-fold higher in patients requiring revision surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6 Supple A):23–31

Aims. Currently, the US Center for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) has been testing bundled payments for revision total joint arthroplasty (TJA) through the Bundled Payment for Care Improvement (BPCI) programme. Under the BPCI, bundled payments for revision TJAs are defined on the basis of diagnosis-related groups (DRGs). However, these DRG-based bundled payment models may not be adequate to account appropriately for the varying case-complexity seen in revision TJAs. Methods. The 2008-2014 Medicare 5% Standard Analytical Files (SAF5) were used to identify patients undergoing revision TJA under DRG codes 466, 467, or 468. Generalized linear regression models were built to assess the independent marginal cost-impact of patient, procedural, and geographic characteristics on 90-day costs. Results. A total of 9,263 patients (DRG-466 = 838, DRG-467 = 4,573, and DRG-468 = 3,842) undergoing revision TJA from 2008 to 2014 were included in the study. Undergoing revision for a dislocation (+$1,221), periprosthetic fracture (+$4,454), and prosthetic joint infection (+$5,268) were associated with higher 90-day costs. Among comorbidities, malnutrition (+$10,927), chronic liver disease (+$3,894), congestive heart failure (+$3,292), anaemia (+$3,149), and coagulopathy (+$2,997) had the highest marginal cost-increase. The five US states with the highest 90-day costs were Alaska (+$14,751), Maryland (+$13,343), New York (+$7,428), Nevada (+$6,775), and California (+$6,731). Conclusion. Under the proposed DRG-based bundled payment methodology, surgeons would be reimbursed the same amount of money for revision TJAs, regardless of the indication (periprosthetic fracture, prosthetic joint infection, mechanical loosening) and/or patient complexity. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(7):959–964

Aims. The aim of this study was to measure the effect of hospital case volume on the survival of revision total knee arthroplasty (RTKA). Methods. This is a retrospective analysis of Scottish Arthroplasty Project data, a nationwide audit which prospectively collects data on all arthroplasty procedures performed in Scotland. The primary outcome was RTKA survival at ten years. The primary explanatory variable was the effect of hospital case volume per year on RTKA survival. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were plotted with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to determine the lifespan of RTKA. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards were used to estimate relative revision risks over time. Hazard ratios (HRs) were reported with 95% CI, and p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results. From 1998 to 2019, 8,301 patients (8,894 knees) underwent RTKA surgery in Scotland (median age at RTKA 70 years (interquartile range (IQR) 63 to 76); median follow-up 6.2 years (IQR 3.0 to 10.2). In all, 4,764 (53.6%) were female, and 781 (8.8%) were treated for infection. Of these 8,894 knees, 957 (10.8%) underwent a second revision procedure. Male sex, younger age at index revision, and positive infection status were associated with need for re-revision. The ten-year survival estimate for RTKA was 87.3% (95% CI 86.5 to 88.1). Adjusting for sex, age, surgeon volume, and indication for revision, high hospital case volume was significantly associated with lower risk of re-revision (HR 0.78 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.94, p < 0.001)). The risk of re-revision steadily declined in centres performing > 20 cases per year; risk reduction was 16% with > 20 cases; 22% with > 30 cases; and 28% with > 40 cases. The lowest level of risk was associated with the highest volume centres. Conclusion. The majority of RTKA in Scotland survive up to ten years. Increasing yearly hospital case volume above 20 cases is independently associated with a significant risk reduction of re-revision. Development of high-volume tertiary centres may lead to an improvement in the overall survival of RTKA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(4):602–609

Aims. Hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) is typically indicated for young and active patients. Due to the longevity of arthroplasty, these patients are likely to undergo revision surgery during their lifetime. There is a paucity of information on the long-term outcome of revision surgeries performed after failed HRA. The aim of our study was to provide survivorship data as well as clinical scores after HRA revisions. Methods. A total of 42 patients (43 hips) were revised after HRA at our centre to a variety of devices, including four HRA and 39 total hip arthroplasties (THAs). In addition to perioperative complications, University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) hip scores and 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey questionnaire (SF-12) quality of life scores were collected at follow-up visits after the primary HRA and after revision surgery. Results. The mean follow-up time after revision surgery was 8.3 years (0.3 to 19.1). The mean UCLA pain and function scores post-revision were comparable with the best scores achieved by the patients after the index HRA, but UCLA activity scores were lower after revision. SF-12 physical component scores were comparable between timepoints, but the mental component score decreased after revision. Six patients underwent unilateral re-revision surgery at a mean follow-up time of 7.8 years (0.3 to 13.7). Using the time to any re-revision as endpoint, the Kaplan-Meier survivorship was 85.3% at 13 years. Conclusion. Patients undergoing revision after HRA can expect to achieve function and quality of life similar to their best after their primary surgery, while the risk of re-revision is low. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(10):1289–1296

Aims. There is evidence that prior lumbar fusion increases the risk of dislocation and revision after total hip arthroplasty (THA). The relationship between prior lumbar fusion and the effect of femoral head diameter on THA dislocation has not been investigated. We examined the relationship between prior lumbar fusion or discectomy and the risk of dislocation or revision after THA. We also examined the effect of femoral head component diameter on the risk of dislocation or revision. Methods. Data used in this study were compiled from several Finnish national health registers, including the Finnish Arthroplasty Register (FAR) which was the primary source for prosthesis-related data. Other registers used in this study included the Finnish Health Care Register (HILMO), the Social Insurance Institutions (SII) registers, and Statistics Finland. The study was conducted as a prospective retrospective cohort study. Cox proportional hazards regression and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis were used for analysis. Results. Prior lumbar fusion surgery was associated with increased risk of prosthetic dislocation (hazard ratio (HR) = 2.393, p < 0.001) and revision (HR = 1.528, p < 0.001). Head components larger than 28 mm were associated with lower dislocation rates compared to the 28 mm head (32 mm: HR = 0.712, p < 0.001; 36 mm: HR = 0.700, p < 0.001; 38 mm: HR = 0.808, p < 0.140; and 40 mm: HR = 0.421, p < 0.001). Heads of 38 mm (HR = 1.288, p < 0.001) and 40 mm (HR = 1.367, p < 0.001) had increased risk of revision compared to the 28 mm head. Conclusion. Lumbar fusion surgery was associated with higher rate of hip prosthesis dislocation and higher risk of revision surgery. Femoral head component of 32 mm (or larger) associates with lower risk of dislocation in patients with previous lumbar fusion. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(8):1003–1009

Aims. Metaphyseal cones with cemented stems are frequently used in revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA). However, if the diaphysis has been previously violated, the resultant sclerotic canal can impair cemented stem fixation, which is vital for bone ingrowth into the cone, and long-term fixation. We report the outcomes of our solution to this problem, in which impaction grafting and a cemented stem in the diaphysis is combined with an uncemented metaphyseal cone, for revision TKA in patients with severely compromised bone. Methods. A metaphyseal cone was combined with diaphyseal impaction grafting and cemented stems for 35 revision TKAs. There were two patients with follow-up of less than two years who were excluded, leaving 33 procedures in 32 patients in the study. The mean age of the patients at the time of revision TKA was 67 years (32 to 87); 20 (60%) were male. Patients had undergone a mean of four (1 to 13) previous knee arthroplasty procedures. The indications for revision were aseptic loosening (80%) and two-stage reimplantation for prosthetic joint infection (PJI; 20%). The mean follow-up was four years (2 to 11). Results. Survival free from revision of the cone/impaction grafting construct due to aseptic loosening was 100% at five years. Survival free from any revision of the construct and free from any reoperation were 92% and 73% at five years, respectively. A total of six patients (six TKAs, 17%) required a further revision, four for infection or wound issues, and two for periprosthetic fracture. Radiologically, one unrevised TKA had evidence of loosening which was asymptomatic. In all unrevised TKAs the impacted diaphyseal bone graft appeared to be incorporated radiologically. Conclusion. When presented with a sclerotic diaphysis and substantial metaphyseal bone loss, this technique combining diaphyseal impaction grafting with a metaphyseal cone provided near universal success in relation to implant fixation. Moreover, radiographs revealed incorporation of the bone graft and biological fixation of the cone. While long-term follow-up will be important, this technique provides an excellent option for the management of complex revision TKAs. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(6 Supple A):116–122

Aims. The aim of this study was to investigate the potentially increased risk of dislocation in patients with neurological disease who sustain a femoral neck fracture, as it is unclear whether they should undergo total hip arthroplasty (THA) or hemiarthroplasty (HA). A secondary aim was to investgate whether dual-mobility components confer a reduced risk of dislocation in these patients. Methods. We undertook a longitudinal cohort study linking the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register with the National Patient Register, including patients with a neurological disease presenting with a femoral neck fracture and treated with HA, a conventional THA (cTHA) with femoral head size of ≤ 32 mm, or a dual-mobility component THA (DMC-THA) between 2005 and 2014. The dislocation rate at one- and three-year revision, reoperation, and mortality rates were recorded. Cox multivariate regression models were fitted to calculate adjusted hazard ratios (HRs). Results. A total of 9,638 patients with a neurological disease who also underwent unilateral arthroplasty for a femoral neck fracture were included in the study. The one-year dislocation rate was 3.7% after HA, 8.8% after cTHA < 32 mm), 5.9% after cTHA (= 32 mm), and 2.7% after DMC-THA. A higher risk of dislocation was associated with cTHA (< 32 mm) compared with HA (HR 1.90 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.26 to 2.86); p = 0.002). There was no difference in the risk of dislocation with DMC-THA (HR 0.68 (95% CI 0.26 to 1.84); p = 0.451) or cTHA (= 32 mm) (HR 1.54 (95% CI 0.94 to 2.51); p = 0.083). There were no differences in the rate of reoperation and revision-free survival between the different types of prosthesis and sizes of femoral head. Conclusion. Patients with a neurological disease who sustain a femoral neck fracture have similar rates of dislocation after undergoing HA or DMC-THA. Most patients with a neurological disease are not eligible for THA and should thus undergo HA, whereas those eligible for THA could benefit from a DMC-THA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(1):134–141

Aims. We evaluated a large database with mechanical failure of a single uncemented modular femoral component, used in revision hip arthroplasty, as the end point and compared them to a control group treated with the same implant. Patient- and implant-specific risk factors for implant failure were analyzed. . Methods. All cases of a fractured uncemented modular revision femoral component from one manufacturer until April 2017 were identified and the total number of implants sold until April 2017 was used to calculate the fracture rate. The manufacturer provided data on patient demographics, time to failure, and implant details for all notified fractured devices. Patient- and implant-specific risk factors were evaluated using a logistic regression model with multiple imputations and compared to data from a previously published reference group, where no fractures had been observed. The results of a retrieval analysis of the fractured implants, performed by the manufacturer, were available for evaluation. Results. There were 113 recorded cases with fracture at the modular junction, resulting in a calculated fracture rate of 0.30% (113/37,600). The fracture rate of the implant without signs of improper use was 0.11% (41/37,600). In 79% (89/113) of cases with a failed implant, either a lateralized (high offset) neck segment, an extralong head, or the combination of both were used. Logistic regression analysis revealed male sex, high body mass index (BMI), straight component design, and small neck segments were significant risk factors for failure. Investigation of the implants (76/113) showed at least one sign of improper use in 72 cases. Conclusion. Implant failure at the modular junction is associated with patient- and implant-specific risk factors as well as technical errors during implantation. Whenever possible, the use of short and lateralized neck segments should be avoided with this revision system. Implantation instructions and contraindications need to be adhered to and respected. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(5):573–579

Aims. We investigated the long-term performance of the Tripolar Trident acetabular component used for recurrent dislocation in revision total hip arthroplasty. We assessed: 1) rate of re-dislocation; 2) incidence of complications requiring re-operation; and 3) Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index (WOMAC) pain and functional scores. Patients and Methods. We retrospectively identified 111 patients who had 113 revision tripolar constrained liners between 1994 and 2008. All patients had undergone revision hip arthroplasty before the constrained liner was used: 13 after the first revision, 17 after the second, 38 after the third, and 45 after more than three revisions. A total of 75 hips (73 patients) were treated with Tripolar liners due to recurrent instability with abductor deficiency, In addition, six patients had associated cerebral palsy, four had poliomyelitis, two had multiple sclerosis, two had spina bifida, two had spondyloepiphyseal dysplasia, one had previous reversal of an arthrodesis, and 21 had proximal femoral replacements. The mean age of patients at time of Tripolar insertions was 72 years (53 to 89); there were 69 female patients (two bilateral) and 42 male patients. All patients were followed up for a mean of 15 years (10 to 24). Overall, 55 patients (57 hips) died between April 2011 and February 2018, at a mean of 167 months (122 to 217) following their tripolar liner implantation. We extracted demographics, implant data, rate of dislocations, and incidence of other complications. Results. At ten years, the Kaplan–Meier survivorship for dislocation was 95.6% (95% confidence interval (CI) 90 to 98), with 101 patients at risk. At 20 years, the survivorship for dislocation was 90.6% (95% CI 81.0 to 95.5), with one patient at risk. Eight patients (7.2%) had a dislocation of their constrained liners. At ten years, the survival to any event was 89.4% (95% CI 82 to 93.8), with 96 patients at risk. At 20 years, the survival to any event was 82.5% (95% CI 71.9 to 89.3), with one patient at risk. Five hips (4.4%) had deep infection. Two patients (1.8%) developed dissociated constraining rings with pain but without dislocation, which required re-operation. Two patients (1.8%) had periprosthetic femoral fractures, without dislocation, that were treated by revision stems along with exchange of the well-functioning constrained liners. Conclusion. Constrained tripolar liners used at revision hip arthroplasty provided favourable results in the long term for treatment of recurrent dislocation and for patients at high risk of dislocation. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B(6 Supple B):123–126

Aims. There is inconsistent evidence on whether prior spinal fusion surgery adversely impacts outcomes following total hip arthroplasty (THA). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the association between pre-existing spinal fusion surgery and the rate of complications following primary THA. Methods. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library up to October 2019 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing outcomes of dislocation, revision, or reasons for revision in patients following primary THA with or without pre-existing spinal fusion surgery. Furthermore, we compared short (two or less levels) or long (three or more levels) spinal fusions to no fusion. Summary measures of association were relative risks (RRs) (with 95% confidence intervals (CIs)). Results. We identified ten articles corresponding to nine unique observational studies comprising of 1,992,366 primary THAs. No RCTs were identified. There were 32,945 cases of spinal fusion and 1,752,362 non-cases. Comparing prior spinal fusion versus no spinal fusion in primary THA, RRs (95% CI) for dislocation was 2.23 (1.81 to 2.74; seven studies), revision 2.14 (1.63 to 2.83; five studies), periprosthetic joint infection 1.71 (1.53 to 1.92; four studies), periprosthetic fracture 1.52 (1.28 to 1.81; three studies), aseptic loosening 1.76 (1.54 to 2.01; three studies), and any complications 2.82 (1.37 to 5.80; three studies) were identified. Both short and long spinal fusions, when compared with no fusion, were associated dislocation, revision, or reasons for revision. Conclusions. Patients with prior spinal fusion are at risk of adverse events following primary THA. Measures that reduce the risk of these complications should be considered in this high-risk population when undergoing primary THA. These patients should also be counselled appropriately around their risks of undergoing THA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(6):664–670

Aims. In the absence of an identified organism, single-stage revision is contraindicated in prosthetic joint infection (PJI). However, no studies have examined the use of intra-articular antibiotics in combination with single-stage revision in these cases. In this study, we present the results of single-stage revision using intra-articular antibiotic infusion for treating culture-negative (CN) PJI. Methods. A retrospective analysis between 2009 and 2016 included 51 patients with CN PJI who underwent single-stage revision using intra-articular antibiotic infusion; these were compared with 192 culture-positive (CP) patients. CN patients were treated according to a protocol including intravenous vancomycin and a direct intra-articular infusion of imipenem and vancomycin alternately used in the morning and afternoon. In the CP patients, pathogen-sensitive intravenous (IV) antibiotics were administered for a mean of 16 days (12 to 21), and for resistant cases, additional intra-articular antibiotics were used. The infection healing rate, Harris Hip Score (HHS), and Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) knee score were compared between CN and CP groups. Results. Of 51 CN patients, 46 (90.2%) required no additional medical treatment for recurrent infection at a mean of 53.2 months (24 to 72) of follow-up. Impaired kidney function occurred in two patients, and one patient had a local skin rash. No significant difference in the infection control rate was observed between CN and CP PJIs (90.2% (46/51) versus 94.3% (181/192); p = 0.297). The HHS of the CN group showed no substantial difference from that of CP cases (79 versus 81; p = 0.359). However, the CN group showed a mean HSS inferior to that of the CP group (76 versus 80; p = 0.027). Conclusion. Single-stage revision with direct intra-articular antibiotic infusion can be effective in treating CN PJI, and can achieve an infection control rate similar to that in CP patients. However, in view of systemic toxicity, local adverse reactions, and higher costs, additional strong evidence is needed to verify these treatment regimens. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(3):336–344

Objectives. We used the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man (NJR) to investigate the risk of revision due to prosthetic joint infection (PJI) for patients undergoing primary and revision hip arthroplasty, the changes in risk over time, and the overall burden created by PJI. Methods. We analysed revision total hip arthroplasties (THAs) performed due to a diagnosis of PJI and the linked index procedures recorded in the NJR between 2003 and 2014. The cohort analysed consisted of 623 253 index primary hip arthroplasties, 63 222 index revision hip arthroplasties and 7585 revision THAs performed due to a diagnosis of PJI. The prevalence, cumulative incidence functions and the burden of PJI (total procedures) were calculated. Overall linear trends were investigated with log-linear regression. Results. We demonstrated a prevalence of revision THA due to prosthetic joint infection of 0.4/100 procedures following primary and 1.6/100 procedures following revision hip arthroplasty. The prevalence of revision due to PJI in the three months following primary hip arthroplasty has risen 2.3-fold (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.3 to 4.1) between 2005 and 2013, and 3.0-fold (95% CI 1.1 to 8.5) following revision hip arthroplasty. Over 1000 procedures are performed annually as a consequence of hip PJI, an increase of 2.6-fold between 2005 and 2013. Conclusions. Although the risk of revision due to PJI following hip arthroplasty is low, it is rising and, coupled with the established and further predicted increased incidence of both primary and revision hip arthroplasty, this represents a growing and substantial treatment burden. Cite this article: E. Lenguerrand, M. R. Whitehouse, A. D. Beswick, S. A. Jones, M. L. Porter, A. W. Blom. Revision for prosthetic joint infection following hip arthroplasty: Evidence from the National Joint Registry. Bone Joint Res 2017;6:391–398. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.66.BJR-2017-0003.R1

Aims. Femoral revision component subsidence has been identified as predicting early failure in revision hip surgery. This comparative cohort study assessed the potential risk factors of subsidence in two commonly used femoral implant designs. Methods. A comparative cohort study was undertaken, analyzing a consecutive series of patients following revision total hip arthroplasties using either a tapered-modular (TM) fluted titanium or a porous-coated cylindrical modular (PCM) titanium femoral component, between April 2006 and May 2018. Clinical and radiological assessment was compared for both treatment cohorts. Risk factors for subsidence were assessed and compared. Results. In total, 65 TM and 35 PCM cases were included. At mean follow-up of seven years (1 to 13), subsidence was noted in both cohorts during the initial three months postoperatively (p < 0.001) then implants stabilized. Subsidence noted in 58.7% (38/65 cases) of the TM cohort (mean 2.3 mm, SD 3.5 mm) compared to 48.8% (17/35) of PCM cohort (mean 1.9 mm, SD 2.6 mm; p = 0.344). Subsidence of PCM cohort were significantly associated with extended trochanteric osteotomy (ETO) (p < 0.041). Although the ETO was used less frequently in PCM stem cohort (7/35), subsidence was noted in 85% (6/7) of them. Significant improvement of the final mean Oxford Hip Score (OHS) was reported in both treatment groups (p < 0.001). Conclusion. Both modular TM and PCM revision femoral components subsided within the femur. TM implants subsided more frequently than PCM components if the femur was intact but with no difference in clinical outcomes. However, if an ETO is performed then a PCM component will subside significantly more and suggests the use of a TM implant may be advisable. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(6):709–715

Aims. Antibiotic-loaded bone cements (ALBCs) may offer early protection against the formation of bacterial biofilm after joint arthroplasty. Use in hip arthroplasty is widely accepted, but there is a lack of evidence in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The objective of this study was to evaluate the use of ALBC in a large population of TKA patients. Materials and Methods. Data from the National Joint Registry (NJR) of England and Wales were obtained for all primary cemented TKAs between March 2003 and July 2016. Patient, implant, and surgical variables were analyzed. Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess the influence of ALBC on risk of revision. Body mass index (BMI) data were available in a subset of patients. Results. Of 731 214 TKAs, 15 295 (2.1%) were implanted with plain cement and 715 919 (97.9%) with ALBC. There were 13 391 revisions; 2391 were performed for infection. After adjusting for other variables, ALBC had a significantly lower risk of revision for any cause (hazard ratio (HR) 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 0.93; p < 0.001). ALBC was associated with a lower risk of revision for all aseptic causes (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.95; p < 0.001) and revisions for infection (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.01; p = 0.06). The results were similar when BMI was added into the model, and in a subanalysis where surgeons using only ALBC over the entire study period were excluded. Prosthesis survival at ten years for TKAs implanted with ALBC was 96.3% (95% CI 96.3 to 96.4) compared with 95.5% (95% CI 95.0 to 95.9) in those implanted with plain cement. On a population level, where 100 000 TKAs are performed annually, this difference represents 870 fewer revisions at ten years in the ALBC group. Conclusion. After adjusting for a range of variables, ALBC was associated with a significantly lower risk of revision in this registry-based study of an entire nation of primary cemented knee arthroplasties. Using ALBC does not appear to increase midterm implant failure rates. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:1331–1347

Aims. The aim of this study was to evaluate the differences in revision and complication rates, functional outcomes, and radiological outcomes between cemented and press-fit humeral stems in primary anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). Materials and Methods. A comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted searching for studies that included patients who underwent primary anatomical TSA for primary osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis. Results. There was a total of 36 studies with 927 cemented humeral stems and 1555 press-fit stems. The revision rate was 5.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) 3.9 to 7.4) at a mean of 89 months for cemented stems, and 2.4% (95% CI 1.1 to 4.7) at a mean of 40 months for press-fit stems. A priori subgroup analysis to control for follow-up periods demonstrated similar revision rates: 2.3% (95% CI 1.1 to 4.7) for cemented stems versus 1.8% (95% CI 1.4 to 2.9) for press-fit stems. Exploratory meta-regression found that longer follow-up was a moderating variable for revision (p = 0.003). Conclusion. Cement fixation had similar revision rates when compared to press-fit stems at short- to midterm follow-up. Rotator cuff pathology was a prevalent complication in both groups but is likely not related to fixation type. Overall, with comparable revision rates, possible easier revision, and decreased operative time, humeral press-fit fixation may be an optimal choice for primary anatomical TSA in patients with sufficient bone stock. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:1107–1114

Aims. To investigate the effect of polyethylene manufacturing characteristics and irradiation dose on the survival of cemented and reverse hybrid total hip arthroplasties (THAs). Methods. In this registry study, data from the National Joint Registry of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man (NJR) were linked with manufacturing data supplied by manufacturers. The primary endpoint was revision of any component. Cox proportional hazard regression was a primary analytic approach adjusting for competing risk of death, patient characteristics, head composition, and stem fixation. Results. A total of 290,770 primary THAs were successfully linked with manufacturing characteristics. Overall 4,708 revisions were analyzed, 1,260 of which were due to aseptic loosening. Total radiation dose was identified as a risk factor and included in the Cox model. For statistical modelling of aseptic loosening, THAs were grouped into three categories: G1 (no radiation); G2 ( > 0 to < 5 Mrad); and G3 ( ≥ 5 Mrad). G1 had the worst survivorship. The Cox regression hazard ratio for revision due to aseptic loosening for G2 was 0.7 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58 to 0.83), and for G3 0.4 (95% CI 0.30 to 0.53). Male sex and uncemented stem fixation were associated with higher risk of revision and ceramic heads with lower risk. Conclusion. Polyethylene irradiation was associated with reduced risk of revision for aseptic loosening. Radiation doses of ≥ 5 Mrad were associated with a further reduction in risk. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2020;9(9):563–571

Aims. This single-centre observational study aimed to describe the results of extensive bone impaction grafting of the whole acetabular cavity in combination with an uncemented component in acetabular revisions performed in a standardized manner since 1993. Methods. Between 1993 and 2013, 370 patients with a median age of 72 years (interquartile range (IQR) 63 to 79 years) underwent acetabular revision surgery. Of these, 229 were more than ten years following surgery and 137 were more than 15 years. All revisions were performed with extensive use of morcellized allograft firmly impacted into the entire acetabular cavity, followed by insertion of an uncemented component with supplementary screw fixation. All types of reoperation were captured using review of radiographs and medical charts, combined with data from the local surgical register and the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. Results. Among patients with possible follow-up of ten and 15 years, 152 and 72 patients remained alive without revision of the acetabular component. The number of deaths was 61 and 50, respectively. Of those who died, six patients in each group had a reoperation performed before death. The number of patients with a reoperation was 22 for those with ten-year follow-up and 21 for those with 15 years of follow-up. The Kaplan-Meier implant survival rate for aseptic loosening among all 370 patients in the cohort was 96.3% (95% confidence interval (CI) 94.1 to 98.5) after ten years and 92.8% (95% CI 89.2 to 96.6) after 15 years. Conclusion. Extensive bone impaction grafting combined with uncemented revision components appears to be a reliable method with favourable long-term survival. This technique offers the advantage of bone stock restoration and disputes the long-standing perception that uncemented components require > 50% of host bone contact for successful implant survival. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(2):198–204