An optimum prosthesis combination of low-risk total knee arthroplasty options in all five primary categories of design results in a 60% reduction in revision risk: a registry analysis of 482,373 prostheses

Total shoulder replacement stems in osteoarthritis-short, long, or reverse? An analysis of the impact of crosslinked polyethylene

BACKGROUND

The 2021 Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) report indicated that total shoulder replacement using both midhead (TMH) length humeral components and reverse arthroplasty (RTSA) had a lower revision rate than stemmed humeral components in anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA)-for all prosthesis types and diagnoses. However, there are many factors that affect the outcome of total shoulder replacement, including stem length and polarity, polyethylene type, and glenoid fixation (cemented vs. cementless). The aim of this study was to assess the impact of these variables in the various primary total arthroplasty alternatives for osteoarthritis (OA) in the shoulder.

METHODS

Data from a large national arthroplasty registry were analyzed for the period April 2004 to December 2020. The study population included all primary aTSA, RTSA, and TMH shoulder arthroplasty procedures undertaken for OA using either crosslinked polyethylene (XLPE) or noncrosslinked polyethylene (non-XLPE). Because of the previously documented and reported higher revision rate compared with other anatomic total shoulder replacement options, those using cementless metal-backed glenoid components were excluded. The rate of revision was determined by Kaplan-Meier estimates, with comparisons by Cox proportional hazard models. Reasons for revision were also assessed.

RESULTS

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 with aTSA with cemented non-XLPE glenoid component at 8.7% and RTSA at 6.8%. The revision rate for TMH (with XLPE or non-XLPE) 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 of cemented aTSR was most commonly component loosening, not rotator cuff deficiency.

CONCLUSION

Long-stem humeral components matched with XLPE in aTSA achieve a lower revision rate compared with 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.

Impact of patient and prosthesis characteristics on common reasons for total knee replacement revision: a registry study of 36,626 revision cases from Australia, Sweden, and USA

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Total knee replacement (TKR) studies usually analyze all-cause revision when considering relationships with patient and prosthesis factors. We studied how these factors impact different revision diagnoses.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We used data from 2003 to 2019 of TKR for osteoarthritis from the arthroplasty registries of Sweden, Australia, and Kaiser Permanente, USA to study patient and prosthesis characteristics for specific revision diagnoses. There were 1,072,924 primary TKR included and 36,626 were revised. Factors studied included age, sex, prosthesis constraint, fixation method, bearing mobility, polyethylene type, and patellar component use. Revision diagnoses were arthrofibrosis, fracture, infection, instability, loosening, pain, patellar reasons, and wear. Odds ratios (ORs) for revision were estimated and summary effects were calculated using a meta-analytic approach.

RESULTS

We found between-registry consistency in 15 factor/reason analyses. Risk factors for revision for arthrofibrosis were age < 65 years (OR 2.0; 95% CI 1.4-2.7) and mobile bearing designs (MB) (OR 1.7; CI 1.1-2.5), for fracture were female sex (OR 3.2; CI 2.2-4.8), age ≥ 65 years (OR 2.8; CI 1.9-4) and posterior stabilized prostheses (PS) (OR 2.1; CI 1.3-3.5), for infection were male sex (OR 1.9; CI 1.7-2.0) and PS (OR 1.5; CI 1.2-1.8), for instability were age < 65 years (OR 1.5; CI 1.3-1.8) and MB (OR 1.5; CI 1.1-2.2), for loosening were PS (OR 1.5; CI 1.4-1.6), MB (OR 2.2; CI 1.6-3.0) and use of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (OR 2.3; CI 1.8-2.9), for patellar reasons were not resurfacing the patella (OR 13.6; CI 2.1-87.2) and MB (OR 2.0; CI 1.2-3.3) and for wear was cementless fixation (OR 4.9; CI 4.3-5.5).

INTERPRETATION

Patients could be counselled regarding specific age and sex risks. Use of minimally stabilized, fixed bearing, cemented prostheses, and patellar components is encouraged to minimize revision risk.

Cost of septic and aseptic revision total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The increasing incidence of primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has led to an increase in both the incidence and the cost burden of revision TKA procedures. This study aimed to review the literature on the cost of revision TKA for septic and aseptic causes and to identify the major cost components contributing to the cost burden.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE (OvidSp), Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, EconLit, and Google Scholar to identify relevant studies. Selection, data extraction and assessment of the risk of bias and cost transparency within the studies were conducted by two independent reviewers, after which the cost data were analysed narratively for 1- or 2-stage septic revision without re-revision; 2-stage septic revision with re-revision; and aseptic revision with and without re-revision, respectively. The major cost components identified in the respective studies were also reported.

RESULTS

The direct medical cost from the healthcare provider perspective for high-income countries for 2-stage septic revision with re-revision ranged from US$66,629 to US$81,938, which can be about 2.5 times the cost of 1- or 2-stage septic revision without re-revision, (range: US$24,027 - US$38,109), which can be about double the cost of aseptic revision without re-revision (range: US$13,910 - US$29,213). The major cost components were the perioperative cost (33%), prosthesis cost (28%), and hospital ward stay cost (22%).

CONCLUSIONS

Septic TKA revision with re-revision for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) increases the cost burden of revision TKA by 4 times when compared to aseptic single-stage revision and by 2.5 times when compared to septic TKA revision that does not undergo re-revision. Cost reductions can be achieved by reducing the number of primary TKA that develop PJI, avoidance of re-revisions for PJI, and reduction in the length of stay after revision.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO; CRD42020171988 .

Cost of Revision Total Knee Replacement: A Protocol for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

A major limitation of total knee replacement (TKR), as with other joint replacements, is the risk of revision. Revision TKR is associated with high risk and economic burden to patients, healthcare providers, and societies. It will be worthwhile to assess the economic burden of revision TKR across countries or different study settings. This study aims to review the literature on the cost of revision TKR to assess costs across countries and studies, estimate a pooled cost estimate for homogenous data, and identify major cost components that contribute to the cost burden.

METHODS

We will conduct a search of the MEDLINE (OvidSp), EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, EconLit, and Google Scholar databases to identify relevant studies, and will use an optimally designed search approach to search for relevant studies. EndNote library will be used to manage the searched studies. Selection will be undertaken in two phases-screening and eligibility. Study selection, data extraction, and assessment of the risk of bias will be performed in duplicate, after which the data will be analysed narratively and a meta-analysis performed for homogenous studies, if possible.

DISCUSSION

This protocol provides a proposed stepwise plan for conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis of the cost of revision TKR. Findings from this systematic review will provide information about the cost across settings and identify the major cost drivers of revision TKR, which will, in turn, stimulate efforts to minimize the cost.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42020171988.

Computerized registry as a potential tool for surveillance and management of complex bone and joint infections in France: French registry of complex bone and joint infections

Aims

The French registry for complex bone and joint infections (C-BJIs) was created in 2012 in order to facilitate a homogeneous management of patients presented for multidisciplinary advice in referral centres for C-BJI, to monitor their activity and to produce epidemiological data. We aimed here to present the genesis and characteristics of this national registry and provide the analysis of its data quality.

Methods

A centralized online secured database gathering the electronic case report forms (eCRFs) was filled for every patient presented in multidisciplinary meetings (MM) among the 24 French referral centres. Metrics of this registry were described between 2012 and 2016. Data quality was assessed by comparing essential items from the registry with a controlled dataset extracted from medical charts of a random sample of patients from each centre. Internal completeness and consistency were calculated.

Results

Between 2012 and 2016, 30,607 presentations in MM were recorded corresponding to 17,748 individual patients (mean age 62.1 years (SD 18.4); 10,961 (61.8%) males). BJI was considered as complex for 63% of cases (n = 19,355), and 13,376 (44%) had prosthetic joint infections (PJIs). The controlled dataset, available for 19 centres, included 283 patients. Global consistency and completeness were estimated at 88.2% and 88.9%, respectively, considering missing items in the eCRFs as negative results.

Conclusion

This national registry is one of the largest prospective databases on BJI and its acceptable data quality parameters allow further use for epidemiological purposes.Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2020;9(9):635-644.