Revision rates after primary hip and knee replacement in England between 2003 and 2006

<b>Background</b>: Hip and knee replacement are some of the most frequently performed surgical procedures in the world. Resurfacing of the hip and unicondylar knee replacement are increasingly being used. There is relatively little evidence on their performance. To study performance of joint replacement in England, we investigated revision rates in the first 3 y after hip or knee replacement according to prosthesis type. <b>Methods and Findings</b>: We linked records of the National Joint Registry for England and Wales and the Hospital Episode Statistics for patients with a primary hip or knee replacement in the National Health Service in England between April 2003 and September 2006. Hospital Episode Statistics records of succeeding admissions were used to identify revisions for any reason. 76,576 patients with a primary hip replacement and 80,697 with a primary knee replacement were included (51% of all primary hip and knee replacements done in the English National Health Service). In hip patients, 3-y revision rates were 0.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.8%–1.1%) with cemented, 2.0% (1.7%–2.3%) with cementless, 1.5% (1.1%–2.0% CI) with “hybrid” prostheses, and 2.6% (2.1%–3.1%) with hip resurfacing (p < 0.0001). Revision rates after hip resurfacing were increased especially in women. In knee patients, 3-y revision rates were 1.4% (1.2%–1.5% CI) with cemented, 1.5% (1.1%–2.1% CI) with cementless, and 2.8% (1.8%–4.5% CI) with unicondylar prostheses (p < 0.0001). Revision rates after knee replacement strongly decreased with age. <b>Interpretation</b>: Overall, about one in 75 patients needed a revision of their prosthesis within 3 y. On the basis of our data, consideration should be given to using hip resurfacing only in male patients and unicondylar knee replacement only in elderly patients

Outcome of revision total knee arthroplasty with bone allograft in 30 cases

Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty is often complicated by large bone defects in the distal femur and proximal tibia. These defects can be managed in a variety of ways including the use of allograft bone. The purpose of this study was to retrospectively evaluate the clinical outcome of revision total knee arthroplasty cases where allograft bone was used. Thirty revision TKA's (27 patients) performed between 1994 and 2009 were followed for a mean of 5 years (1- 14 years). Preoperative bone defects were classified using the Anderson Orthopaedic Research Institute classification system. Patient follow-up entailed calculation of the Knee Society Score and radiological assessment of the revision joint replacement in addition to review of complications. Kaplan Meier analysis predicted survivorship at 5 years as 93%, with further revision surgery as end point. The average Knee Society Score was 76.4, with 19 (63%) of knees scoring "excellent" results, 4 (14%) "good", 1 (3%) "fair" and 6 (20%) were "poor". The overall complication rate was 23.3%. Radiological lucency was demonstrated on recent radiographs for one patient. Three knees were re-revised at 1 year, 6 years and 8 years respectively. Our study demonstrates promising short to medium term results with the use of allograft bone in revision total knee replacement presenting with significant bone loss

The Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry

The document attached has been archived with permission from the editor of the Medical Journal of Australia. An external link to the publisher’s copy is included.In the financial year ending June 2002, 26 689 hip replacements and 26089 knee replacements (total, 52778) were performed in Australia. Hip and knee replacement procedures have increased between 5%-10% each year for the past 10 years, with a combined increase in hip and knee replacement of 13.4% in the past year. The revision rate for hip replacement surgery in Australia is unknown but is estimated to be 20%-24%; the revision rate for hip replacement surgery in Sweden is 7%. Although data collection for the Registry is voluntary, it has 100% compliance from hospitals undertaking joint-replacement surgery.Stephen E Graves, David Davidson, Lisa Ingerson, Philip Ryan, Elizabeth C Griffith, Brian F J McDermott, Heather J McElroy and Nicole L Prat

A systematic review of the evidence for single stage and two stage revision of infected knee replacement

BACKGROUND: Periprosthetic infection about the knee is a devastating complication that may affect between 1% and 5% of knee replacement. With over 79 000 knee replacements being implanted each year in the UK, periprosthetic infection (PJI) is set to become an important burden of disease and cost to the healthcare economy. One of the important controversies in treatment of PJI is whether a single stage revision operation is superior to a two-stage procedure. This study sought to systematically evaluate the published evidence to determine which technique had lowest reinfection rates. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was undertaken using the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases with the aim to identify existing studies that present the outcomes of each surgical technique. Reinfection rate was the primary outcome measure. Studies of specific subsets of patients such as resistant organisms were excluded. RESULTS: 63 studies were identified that met the inclusion criteria. The majority of which (58) were reports of two-stage revision. Reinfection rated varied between 0% and 41% in two-stage studies, and 0% and 11% in single stage studies. No clinical trials were identified and the majority of studies were observational studies. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence for both one-stage and two-stage revision is largely of low quality. The evidence basis for two-stage revision is significantly larger, and further work into direct comparison between the two techniques should be undertaken as a priority

Total or Partial Knee Arthroplasty Trial - TOPKAT : study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Towards a working methodology for using total hip and knee joint replacements to support identification

Hip and knee prostheses have occasionally been used to support identification of unknown persons along with other medical devices and implants. This paper looks at the specific issues around using hip and knee implants, suggesting a working methodology for their use in supporting identification during and after a post-mortem. The value of Total Knee Replacements (TKR) and Total Hip Replacements (THR) as a means of identification along with other implants is a very recent area of interest in Forensic Science considering the long history of implants. This together with the recent introduction of Joint Replacement Registries means that using hip and knee implants to support identification is likely to become automatic in the future but is not currently automatic. The paper looks at the accumulative collection of evidence as well as the range of issues including; the types and changes in early prostheses, examination of the body for external indications of implants, radiological recording prior to autopsy for confirmation of identification using matching of features with ante-mortem images, actual harvesting and collection of all parts of the joint replacement including cement and any other components, specific differences between TKR and THR. In developing an approach to the problems associated with identifications using TKRs and THRs a stepwise process and the full recording of all of the features associated with the implant as well as manufacturers details and identification numbers is suggested so that the cumulative nature of these features will help to narrow down possibilities towards a more certain identification and confirmation of that identification

Trends and Regional Variation in Hip, Knee and Shoulder Replacement

Analyzes patterns in underuse or overuse of joint replacements among Medicare beneficiaries by geographic regions and race/ethnicity. Explores underlying factors and highlights the need for physician and patient education and shared decision making

Does bariatric surgery prior to total hip or knee arthroplasty reduce post-operative complications and improve clinical outcomes for obese patients? Systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: Our aim was to determine whether, based on the current literature, bariatric surgery prior to total hip (THA) or total knee arthroplasty (TKA) reduces the complication rates and improves the outcome following arthroplasty in obese patients. METHODS: A systematic literature search was undertaken of published and unpublished databases on the 5 November 2015. All papers reporting studies comparing obese patients who had undergone bariatric surgery prior to arthroplasty, or not, were included. Each study was assessed using the Downs and Black appraisal tool. A meta-analysis of risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) was performed to determine the incidence of complications including wound infection, deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), revision surgery and mortality. RESULTS: From 156 potential studies, five were considered to be eligible for inclusion in the study. A total of 23 348 patients (657 who had undergone bariatric surgery, 22 691 who had not) were analysed. The evidence-base was moderate in quality. There was no statistically significant difference in outcomes such as superficial wound infection (relative risk (RR) 1.88; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95 to 0.37), deep wound infection (RR 1.04; 95% CI 0.65 to 1.66), DVT (RR 0.57; 95% CI 0.13 to 2.44), PE (RR 0.51; 95% CI 0.03 to 8.26), revision surgery (RR 1.24; 95% CI 0.75 to 2.05) or mortality (RR 1.25; 95% CI 0.16 to 9.89) between the two groups. CONCLUSION: For most peri-operative outcomes, bariatric surgery prior to THA or TKA does not significantly reduce the complication rates or improve the clinical outcome. This study questions the previous belief that bariatric surgery prior to arthroplasty may improve the clinical outcomes for patients who are obese or morbidly obese. This finding is based on moderate quality evidence. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:1160-6

Total knee arthroplasty after high tibial osteotomy. A systematic review

Background: Previous osteotomy may compromise subsequent knee replacement, but no guidelines considering knee arthroplasty after prior osteotomy have been developed. We describe a systematic review of non-randomized studies to analyze the effect of high tibial osteotomy on total knee arthroplasty. Methods: A computerized search for relevant studies published up to September 2007 was performed in Medline and Embase using a search strategy that is highly sensitive to find nonrandomized studies. Included were observational studies in which patients had total knee arthroplasty performed after prior high tibial osteotomy. Studies that fulfilled these criteria, were assessed for methodologic quality by two independent reviewers using the critical appraisal of observational studies developed by Deeks and the MINORS instrument. The study characteristics and data on the intervention, follow-up, and outcome measures, were extracted using a pre-tested standardized form. Primary outcomes were: knee range of motion, knee clinical score, and revision surgery. The grade of evidence was determined using the guidelines of the GRADE working group. Results: Of the 458 articles identified using our search strategy, 17 met the inclusion criteria. Fifteen studies were cohort study with a concurrent control group, one was a historical cohort study and one a case-control study. Nine studies scored 50% or more on both methodological quality assessments. Pooling of the results was not possible due to the heterogeneity of the studies, and our analysis could not raise the overall low quality of evidence. No significant differences between primary total knee arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty after osteotomy were found for knee range of motion in four out of six studies, knee clinical scores in eight out of nine studies, and revision surgery in eight out of eight studies after a median follow-up of 5 years. Conclusion: Our analysis suggests that osteotomy does not compromise subsequent knee replacement. However, the low quality of evidence precludes solid clinical conclusions