Higher risk of 2-year cup revision of ceramic-on-ceramic versus ceramic-on-polyethylene bearing: analysis of 33,454 primary press-fit total hip arthroplasties registered in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI)

Background and purpose: The influence of bearing on short-term revision in press-fit total hip arthroplasty (THA) remains under-reported. The aim of this study was to describe 2-year cup revision rates of ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC) and ceramic-on-polyethylene (CoPE). Patients and methods: Primary press-fit THAs with one of the three most used cups available with both CoC or CoPE bearing recorded in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI) were included (2007-2019). Primary outcome was 2-year cup revision for all reasons. Secondary outcomes were: reasons for revision, incidence of different revision procedures and use of both bearings over time. Results: 2-year Kaplan-Meier cup revision rate in 33,454 THAs (12,535 CoC; 20,919 CoPE) showed a higher rate in CoC (0.67% [95% CI, 0.54-0.81]) compared to CoPE (0.44% [95% CI, 0.34-0.54]) (p = 0.004). Correction for confounders (age, gender, cup type, head size) resulted in a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.64 [95%CI, 0.48-0.87] (p = 0.019). Reasons for cup revision differed only by more cup revision due to loosening in CoC (26.2% vs.1 3.2%) (p = 0.030). For aseptic loosening a revision rate of 0.153% [95% CI, 0.075-0.231] was seen in CoC and 0.058% [95%CI 0.019-0.097] in CoPE (p = 0.007). Correction for head size resulted in a HR of 0.475 [95% CI, 0.197-1.141] (p = 0.096). Incidence of different revision procedures did not differ between bearings. Over time the use of CoPE has increased and CoC decreased. Conclusions: A higher 2-year cup revision rate in press-fit THA was observed in CoC compared to CoPE. Cup loosening was the only significantly different reason for revision and seen more often in CoC and mostly aseptic. Future randomised controlled trials need to confirm causality, since the early cup revision data provided has the potential to be useful when choosing the bearing in press-fit THA, when combined with other factors like bone quality and patient and implant characteristics.Orthopaedics, Trauma Surgery and Rehabilitatio

Do symptoms of anxiety and/or depression and pain intensity before primary Total knee arthroplasty influence reason for revision? Results of an observational study from the Dutch arthroplasty register in 56,233 patients

Objective: Anxiety, depression and greater pain intensity before total knee arthroplasty (TKA) may increase the probability of revision surgery for remaining symptoms even without clear pathology or technical issues. We aimed to assess whether preoperative anxiety/depression and pain intensity are associated with revision TKA for less clear indications. Methods: Less clear indications for revision were defined after a Delphi process in which consensus was reached among 59 orthopaedic knee experts. We performed a cox regression analyses on primary TKA patients registered in the Dutch Arthroplasty Registry (LROI) who completed the EuroQol 5D 3 L (EQ5D-3 L) anxiety/depression score to examine associations between preoperative anxiety/depression and pain (Numeric Rating Scale (NRS)) with TKA revision for less clear reasons. These analyses were adjusted for age, BMI, sex, smoking, ASA score, EQ5D-3 L thermometer and OKS score. Results: In total, 25.9% patients of the 56,233 included patients reported moderate or severe symptoms of anxiety/depression on the EQ5D-3 L anxiety/depression score. Of those, 615 revisions (45.5%) were performed for less clear reasons for revision (patellar pain, malalignment, instability, progression of osteoarthritis or arthrofibrosis). Not EQ5D-3 L anxiety/depression score, but higher NRS pain at rest and EQ5D-3 L pain score were associated with revision for less clear reason (HR: 1.058, 95% CI 1.019-1.099 & HR: 1.241, 95% CI 1.044-1.476, respectively). Conclusion: Our findings suggest that pain intensity is a risk factor for TKA revision for a less clear reason. The finding that preoperative pain intensity was associated with reason for revision confirms a likely influence of subjective, personal factors on offer and acceptance of TKA revision. The association between anxiety/depression and reason for revision after TKA may also be found when including more specific outcome measures to assess anxiety/depression and we therefore hope to encourage further research on this topic with our study, ideally in a prospective setting. Study design: Longitudinal Cohort Study Level III, Delphi Consensu

International variation in distribution of ASA class in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty and its influence on mortality: data from an international consortium of arthroplasty registries

Background and purpose — A challenge comparing outcomes from total hip arthroplasty between countries is variation in preoperative characteristics, particularly comorbidity. Therefore, we investigated between-country variation in comorbidity in patients based on ASA class distribution, and determined any variation of ASA class to mortality risk between countries. Patients and methods — All arthroplasty registries collecting ASA class and mortality data in patients with elective primary THAs performed 2012–2016 were identified. Survival analyses of the influence of ASA class on 1-year mortality were performed by individual registries, followed by meta-analysis of aggregated data. Results — 6 national registries and 1 US healthcare organization registry with 418,916 THAs were included. There was substantial variation in the proportion of ASA class III/IV, ranging from 14% in the Netherlands to 39% in Finland. Overall, 1-year mortality was 0.93% (95% CI 0.87–1.01) and increased from 0.2% in ASA class I to 8.9% in class IV. The association between ASA class and mortality measured by hazard ratios (HR) was strong in all registries even after adjustment for age and sex, which reduced them by half in all registries. Combined adjusted HRs were 2.0, 6.1, and 22 for ASA class II–IV vs. I, respectively. Associations were moderately heterogeneous across registries. Interpretation — We observed large variation in ASA class distribution between registries, possibly explained by differences in background morbidity and/or international variation in access to surgery. The similar, strong mortality trends by ASA class between countries enhance the relevance of its use as an indicator of comorbidity in international registry studies

Reasons for revision are associated with rerevised total knee arthroplasties: an analysis of 8,978 index revisions in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register

Background and purpose - From previous studies, we know that clinical outcomes of revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) differ among reasons for revision. Whether the prevalence of repeat rTKAs is different depending on the reason for index rTKA is unclear. Therefore, we (1) compared the repeat revision rates between the different reasons for index rTKA, and (2) evaluated whether the reason for repeat rTKA was the same as the reason for the index revision.Patients and methods - Patients (n = 8,978) who underwent an index rTKA between 2010 and 2018 as registered in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register were included. Reasons for revision, as reported by the surgeon, were categorized as: infection, loosening, malposition, instability, stiffness, patellar problems, and other. Competing risk analyses were performed to determine the cumulative repeat revision rates after an index rTKA for each reason for revision.Results - Overall, the cumulative repeat revision rate was 19% within 8 years after index rTKA. Patients revised for infection had the highest cumulative repeat revision rate (28%, 95% CI 25-32) within 8 years after index rTKA. The recurrence of the reason was more common than other reasons after index rTKA for infection (18%), instability (8%), stiffness (7%), and loosening (5%).Interpretation - Poorest outcomes were found for rTKA for infection: over 1 out of 4 infection rTKAs required another surgical intervention, mostly due to infection. Recurrence of other reasons for revision (instability, stiffness, and loosening) was also considerable. Our findings also emphasize the importance of a clear diagnosis before doing rTKA to avert second revision surgeries

Rare primary patellar resurfacing does not lead to more secondary patellar resurfacing: analysis of 70,014 primary total knee arthroplasties in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI)

Background and purpose - Current literature provides no conclusive evidence in support of a patellar resurfacing vs. non-resurfacing regime. Therefore, we compared the incidence of secondary patellar resurfacing among hospitals using 3 different primary patellar resurfacing regimes in the Netherlands. Secondarily we identified patient and surgical characteristics associated with primary patellar resurfacing and secondary patella resurfacing following non-resurfaced primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA).Patients and methods - We used data from 2014-2016 of the Dutch Arthroplasty Register. Hospitals were divided into rare (0-10%), selective (>10% to 90%), and usually primary patellar resurfacing (>90%) regimes. We performed a logistic regression analysis for associated factors of primary patellar resurfacing in the selective resurfacing subgroup and for secondary patellar resurfacing in the rare resurfacing subgroup.Results - The rate of primary resurfacing was 5.2% for the rare and 36% for the selective patellar resurfacing regimes, with similar secondary patellar resurfacing (1.1% vs. 0.9%). Predictors for primary patellar resurfacing were being female (OR 1.3) and younger (50-59 years, OR 1.4). The PS prosthesis design had a higher OR (4.1) than the CR design. Younger age (50-59 years, OR 1.5) and PS prosthesis (OR 2.7) were significant predictors of secondary patellar resurfacing. Particular surgical systems have a higher rate of primary and secondary patellar resurfacing.Interpretation - Low rates of secondary patellar resurfacing in hospitals with a rare resurfacing regime indicate that this regime does not lead to more secondary patellar resurfacing then selective resurfacing. In the Dutch orthopedic community primary and secondary patellar resurfacing is associated with using a posterior stabilizing design, being younger, and using particular TKA systems

Outcome of revised metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties: a Dutch arthroplasty register study

Background Preliminary results of metal-on-metal (MoM) hip arthroplasty were satisfactory, but since 2004 data showed high failure rates. National joint replacement registries are multi-centre databases comprised of thousands of subjects and implants which allow for identifying variables predictive of implant failure. The aim of the current study was to estimate re-revision rates after revision of a primary MoM hip arthroplasty in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI) and to assess potential predictor variables of re-revision of these MoM hip arthroplasties. Methods Eligible procedures were those with a revision for any reason except infection, after an initial primary surgery with a hip resurfacing (HRA) or large-head MoM (LH-MoM) total hip arthroplasty (THA). The probability of re-revision for both types of MoM hip arthroplasty over time was estimated using the cumulative incidence function taking mortality as a competing risk into account. A proportional sub-distribution hazards regression model was used to assess potential predictor variables of re-revision of these MoM hip arthroplasties. Results A total of 3476 records of revised implants were included, of which 873 (25.2%) were MoM implants. Over the course of follow-up, 101 (11.5%) MoM implants were re-revised. During follow-up 36 (4.3%) patients who received a MoM-implant at primary arthroplasty and a revision afterwards had died. The regression model showed that for primary MoM implants a MoM articulation after revision (HR 2.48; 95% CI 1.53-4.03, p < 0.001), femoral-only revisions (HR 3.20; 95% CI 2.06-4.99, p < 0.001) and periprosthetic fractures (HR 1.98; 95% CI 1.03-3.82, p = 0.042) as reason for the first revision were statistically significant risk factors for re-revision. Conclusion Both types of large-head MoM hip arthroplasties have shown high revision and re-revision rates; risk factors were identified. The outcome of this study can be helpful in managing expectations of patients and orthopaedic surgeons

Implant survival of total elbow arthroplasty: analysis of 514 cases from the Dutch Arthroplasty Registry

Aims The aim of this study is to report the implant survival and factors associated with revision of total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) using data from the Dutch national registry. Methods All TEAs recorded in the Dutch national registry between 2014 and 2020 were included. The Kaplan-Meier method was used for survival analysis, and a logistic regression model was used to assess the factors associated with revision. Results A total of 514 TEAs were included, of which 35 were revised. The five-year implant survival was 91%. Male sex, a higher BMI, and previous surgery to the same elbow showed a statisti-cally significant association with revision (p < 0.036). Of the 35 revised implants, ten (29%) underwent a second revision. Conclusion This study reports a five-year implant survival of TEA of 91%. Patient factors associated with revision are defined and can be used to optimize informed consent and shared decision-making. There was a high rate of secondary revisions

Increased risk of aseptic loosening for posterior stabilized compared with posterior cruciate-retaining uncemented total knee replacements:a cohort study of 13,667 knees from the Dutch Arthroplasty Registry

Background and purpose — While registry studies have suggested a higher risk of revision for posterior-stabilized (PS) compared with posterior cruciate-retaining (CR) total knee replacements (TKR) using cement, it is unknown whether this is also the case for uncemented TKR. We aimed to compare the revision rates of PS and CR designs in patients receiving primary uncemented TKR. Patients and methods — Data from the Dutch arthro-plasty register (LROI) was analyzed, comprising 12,226 uncemented primary CR TKRs and 750 uncemented PS TKRs registered between 2007 and 2022. Competing risk and multivariable Cox regression analyses were used to compare revision rates, risks of revision, and reasons for revision between groups. Sensitivity analyses were performed to analyze the risk, concerning the 5 most commonly used implants and performing hospitals for each group. Results — Uncemented PS TKRs had higher 10-year revision rates for any reason and aseptic loosening (6.5%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.6–9.2 and 3.9%, CI 2.6–6.7) compared with uncemented CR TKRs (4.2%, CI 3.8–4.7 and 1.4%, CI 1.2–1.7). PS TKRs were 1.4 and 2.5 times more likely to be revised for any reason and aseptic loosening, respectively. These results remained consistent after adjust-ment for age, sex, BMI, previous surgeries, bearing mobility, and surface modification, with sensitivity analyses. Conclusion — We found that uncemented PS implants have a higher rate of revision than uncemented CR implants, mainly due to a higher risk of aseptic loosening.</p

Implant survival of total elbow arthroplasty: analysis of 514 cases from the Dutch Arthroplasty Registry

Aims The aim of this study is to report the implant survival and factors associated with revision of total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) using data from the Dutch national registry. Methods All TEAs recorded in the Dutch national registry between 2014 and 2020 were included. The Kaplan-Meier method was used for survival analysis, and a logistic regression model was used to assess the factors associated with revision. Results A total of 514 TEAs were included, of which 35 were revised. The five-year implant survival was 91%. Male sex, a higher BMI, and previous surgery to the same elbow showed a statisti-cally significant association with revision (p < 0.036). Of the 35 revised implants, ten (29%) underwent a second revision. Conclusion This study reports a five-year implant survival of TEA of 91%. Patient factors associated with revision are defined and can be used to optimize informed consent and shared decision-making. There was a high rate of secondary revisions

Defining Clinically Meaningful Thresholds for Patient-Reported Outcomes in Knee Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND: For primary knee arthroplasties, clinically meaningful thresholds of patient-reported outcomes that associate with patient satisfaction have not been defined appropriately. METHODS: In this retrospective study of 26,720 primary total knee replacements registered in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (2016-2018), receiver operating curve analysis was used to define minimal clinically important changes (MCICs) and patient acceptable symptom states (PASSs) with the anchor satisfaction. Patient-reported outcome measures were pain, European Quality of Life 5 Dimensions, Knee disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, and Oxford Knee Score (OKS). Independent analyses were performed for groups, which showed statistically significant interactions with the (change in) score to achieve satisfaction in logistic regression. RESULTS: In this cohort, 84.9% completed the anchor questions, of whom 71.3% with a satisfaction score ≥8. Good discriminative abilities (area under the receiving operator curve >0.8) for PASS were achieved by OKS ≥38.5, pain in activity ≤2.5, Knee disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score ≤33, and Quality of Life-Index ≥0.813. Discriminative abilities for MCIC were not good. If assessed per baseline tercile, discrimination improved (area under the receiving operator curve >0.8) and yielded different MCICs per preoperative tercile (preoperative OKS ≤19: MCIC ≥19.5; pre-OKS 20-27: MCIC ≥14.5; pre-OKS ≥28: MCIC ≥8.5). For MCIC, the tercile method produced an 11% improved accuracy compared to one threshold for every patient. For the PASS scores, tercile-specific did not improve the accuracy of predicting satisfaction. Demographics were not clinically relevant in determining thresholds. CONCLUSION: Estimating the likelihood of satisfaction with surgery is critical in shared decision-making. Patients with more preoperative symptom severity require larger changes to report satisfaction. Both in the clinic and in science, such differences must be considered when predictions of satisfaction are attempted