Socioeconomic inequalities in patient-reported outcome measures of Dutch primary hip and knee arthroplasty patients for osteoarthritis

Objective:To study socio-economic inequalities in patient-reported outcomes in primary hip and knee arthroplasty (THA/TKA) patients for osteoarthritis, using two analytical techniques. Methods: We obtained data from 44,732 THA and 30,756 TKA patients with preoperative and 12-month follow-up PROMs between 2014 and 2020 from the Dutch Arthroplasty Registry. A deprivation indicator based on neighborhood income, unemployment rate, and education level was linked and categorized into quintiles. The primary outcome measures were the EQ-5D-3L index and Oxford Hip/Knee Score (OHS/OKS) preoperative, at 12-month follow-up, and the calculated change score between these measurements. We contrasted the most and least deprived quintiles using multivariable linear regression, adjusting for patient characteristics. Concurrently, we calculated concentration indices as a non-arbitrary tool to quantify inequalities. Results: Compared to the least deprived, the most deprived THA patients had poorer preoperative (EQ-5D −0.03 (95%CI −0.02, -0.04), OHS −1.26 (−0.99, −1.52)) and 12-month follow-up health (EQ-5D −0.02 (−0.01, −0.02), OHS −0.42 (−0.19, −0.65)), yet higher mean change (EQ-5D 0.02 (0.01, 0.03), OHS 0.84 (0.52, 1.16)). The most deprived TKA patients had similar results. The higher mean change among the deprived resulted from lower preoperative health in this group (confounding). After accounting for this, the most deprived patients had a lower mean change. The concentration indices showed similar inequality effects and provided information on the magnitude of inequalities over the entire socio-economic range. Conclusion: The most deprived THA and TKA patients have worse preoperative health, which persisted after surgery. The concentration indices allow comparison of inequalities across different outcomes (e.g., revision risk).</p

Patient Characteristics Influence Revision Rate of Total Hip Arthroplasty:American Society of Anesthesiologists Score and Body Mass Index Were the Strongest Predictors for Short-Term Revision After Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty

Background: Outcome and survival after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) can be affected by patient characteristics. We examined the effect of case-mix on revision after primary THA using the Dutch Arthroplasty Register. Methods: Our cohort included all primary THAs (n = 218,214) performed in patients with osteoarthritis in the Netherlands between 2007 and 2018. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to calculate the difference in survivorship in patients with different patient characteristics (age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists [ASA] score, body mass index [BMI], Charnley score, smoking, and previous operations to the hip). Results: Case-mix factors associated with an increased risk for revision 1 year after THA were the following: a high ASA score (II and III-IV) (odds ratio [OR] 1.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1-2.0 and OR 3.0, 95% CI 1.7-5.3), a higher BMI (30-40 and >40) (OR 1.4, 95% CI 1.2-1.5 and OR 2.0, 95% CI 1.4-1.7), age ≥75 years (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.1-2.0), and male gender (OR 1.3, 95% CI 1.2-1.4). A similar model for 3-year revision showed comparable results. High BMI (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.3-2.9), a previous hip operation (OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.3-2.5), ASA III-IV (OR 1.2, 95% CI 1-1.6), and Charnley score C (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.1-2.2) were associated with increased risk for revision. Main reasons for revision in obese and ASA II-IV patients were infection, dislocation, and periprosthetic fracture. Patients with femoral neck fracture and late post-traumatic pathology were more likely to be revised within 3 years, compared to osteoarthritis patients (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.3-1.7 and OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.2-1.7). Conclusion: The short-term risk for revision after primary THA is influenced by case-mix factors. ASA score and BMI (especially >40) were the strongest predictors for 1-year revision after primary THA. After 3 years, BMI and previous hip surgery were independent risk factors for revision. This will help surgeons to identify and counsel high-risk patients and take appropriate preventive measures

Total hip arthroplasties in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI) and the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA): comparison of patient and procedure characteristics in 475,685 cases

Background and purpose — Collaborations between arthroplasty registries are important in order to create the possibility of detecting inferior implants early and improve our understanding of differences between nations in terms of indications and outcomes. In this registry study we compared patient and procedure characteristics, and revision rates in the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA) database and the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI). Patients and methods — All total hip arthroplasties (THAs) performed in 2010–2016 were included from the LROI (n = 184,862) and the NARA database (n = 290,823), which contains data from Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Finland. Descriptive statistics and Kaplan–Meier survival analyses based on all reasons for revision and stratified by fixation were performed and compared between countries. Results — In the Netherlands, the proportion of patients aged < 55 years (9%) and male patients (34%) was lower than in Nordic countries (< 55 years 11–13%; males 35–43%); the proportion of osteoarthritis (OA) (87%) was higher compared with Sweden (81%), Norway (77%), and Denmark (81%) but comparable to Finland (86%). Uncemented fixation was used in 62% of patients in the Netherlands, in 70% of patients in Denmark and Finland, and in 28% and 19% in Norway and Sweden, respectively. The 5-year revision rate for THAs for OA was lower in Sweden (2.3%, 95% CI 2.1–2.5) than in the Netherlands (3.0%, CI 2.9–3.1), Norway (3.8%, CI 3.6–4.0), Denmark (4.6%, CI 4.4–4.8), and Finland (4.4%, CI 4.3–4.5). Revision rates in Denmark, Norway, and Finland were higher for all fixation groups. Interpretation — Patient and THA procedure characteristics as well as revision rates evinced some differences between the Netherlands and the Nordic countries. The Netherlands compared best with Denmark in terms of patient and procedure characteristics, but resembled Sweden more in terms of short-term revision risk. Combining data from registries like LROI and the NARA collaboration is feasible and might possibly enable tracking of potential outlier implants.publishedVersio

Nationwide review of mixed and non-mixed components from different manufacturers in total hip arthroplasty: A Dutch Arthroplasty Register study

Background and purpose — Combining components from different manufacturers in total hip arthroplasty (THA) is common practice worldwide. We determined the proportion of THAs used in the Netherlands that consist of components from different manufacturers, and compared the revision rates of these mixed THAs with those of non-mixed THAs. Patients and methods — Data on primary and revision hip arthroplasty are recorded in the LROI, the nationwide population-based arthroplasty register in the Netherlands. We selected all 163,360 primary THAs that were performed in the period 2007–2014. Based on the manufacturers of the components, 4 groups were discerned: non-mixed THAs with components from the same manufacturer (n = 142,964); mixed stem-head THAs with different manufacturers for the femoral stem and head (n = 3,663); mixed head-cup THAs with different head and cup manufacturers (n = 12,960), and mixed stem-head-cup THAs with different femoral stem, head, and cup manufacturers (n = 1,773). Mixed prostheses were defined as THAs (stem, head, and cup) composed of components made by different manufacturers. Results — 11% of THAs had mixed components (n = 18,396). The 6-year revision rates were similar for mixed and non-mixed THAs: 3.4% (95% CI: 3.1w–3.7) for mixed THAs and 3.5% (95% CI: 3.4–3.7) for non-mixed THAs. Revision of primary THAs due to loosening of the acetabulum was more common in mixed THAs (16% vs. 12%). Interpretation — Over an 8-year period in the Netherlands, 11% of THAs had mixed components—with similar medium-term revision rates to those of non-mixed THAs

Out-of-hospital opioid prescriptions after knee and hip arthroplasty: prescribers and the first prescribed opioid

Background: We determined the first prescribed opioid and the prescribers of opioids after knee and hip arthroplasty (KA/HA) between 2013 and 2018 in the Netherlands. We also evaluated whether the first prescribed opioid dose was associated with the total dispensed dose and long-term opioid use in the first postoperative year. Methods: The Dutch Foundation for Pharmaceutical Statistics was linked to the Dutch Arthroplasty Register. Stratified for KA/HA, the first out-of-hospital opioid within 30 days of operation was quantified as median morphine milligram equivalent (MME). Opioid prescribers were orthopaedic surgeons, general practitioners, rheumatologists, anaesthesiologists, and other physicians. Long-term use was defined as ≥1 opioid prescription for >90 postoperative days. We used linear and logistic regression analyses adjusted for confounders. Results: Seventy percent of 46 106 KAs and 51% of the 42 893 HAs were prescribed ≥1 opioid. Oxycodone increased as first prescribed opioid (from 44% to 85%) whereas tramadol decreased (64–11%), but their dosage remained stable (stronger opioids were preferred by prescribers). An increase in the first prescription of 1% MME resulted in a 0.43%/0.37% increase in total MME (KA/HA, respectively). A 100 MME increase in dose of the first dispensed opioid had a small effect on long-term use (prevalence: 25% KA, 20% HA) (odds ratio=1.02/1.01 for KA/HA, respectively). Orthopaedic surgeons increasingly prescribed the first prescription between 2013 and 2018 (44–69%). General practitioners mostly prescribed consecutive prescriptions (>50%). Conclusion: Oxycodone increased as first out-of-hospital prescription between 2013 and 2018. The dose of the first prescribed opioid was associated with the total dose and a small increased risk of prolonged use. First prescriptions were mostly written by orthopaedic surgeons and consecutive prescriptions by general practitioners

Opioid prescribing patterns after arthroplasty of the knee and hip: a Dutch nationwide cohort study from 2013 to 2018

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Numbers on opioid prescriptions over time in arthroplasty patients are currently lacking. Therefore we determined the annual opioid prescribing rate in patients who received a hip/knee arthroplasty (HA/KA) between 2013 and 2018. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The Dutch Foundation for Pharmaceutical Statistics, which provides national coverage of medication prescriptions, was linked to the Dutch Arthroplasty Register, which provides arthroplasty procedures. The opioid prescription rates were expressed as the number of defined daily dosages (DDD) and morphine milligram equivalent (MME) per person year (PY) and stratified for primary and revision arthroplasty. Amongst subgroups for age (< 75; ≥ 75 years) and sex for primary osteoarthritis arthroplasties, prescription rates stratified for opioid type (weak/strong) and prevalent preoperative opioid prescriptions (yes/no) were assessed. RESULTS: 48,051 primary KAs and 53,964 HAs were included, and 3,540 revision KAs and 4,118 HAs. In 2013, after primary KA 58% were dispensed ≥ 1 opioid within the first year; this increased to 89% in 2018. For primary HA these numbers increased from 38% to 75%. In KAs the prescription rates increased from 13.1 DDD/PY to 14.4 DDD/PY, mainly due to oxycodone prescriptions (2.9 DDD/PY to 7.3 DDD/PY), while tramadol decreased (7.3 DDD/PY to 4.6 DDD/PY). The number of MME/PY also increased (888 MME/PY to 1224 MME/PY). Similar changes were observed for HA and revision arthroplasties. Irrespective of joint, prescription of opioid medication increased over time, with highest levels in groups with preoperative opioid prescriptions while weak opioid prescriptions decreased. INTERPRETATION: In the Netherlands, between 2013 and 2018 postoperative opioid prescriptions after KA and HA increased, mainly due to increased oxycodone prescriptions with highest levels after surgeries with preoperative prescriptions

Periprosthetic Joint Infection After Total Knee Arthroplasty With or Without Antibiotic Bone Cement.

IMPORTANCE Despite increased use of antibiotic-loaded bone cement (ALBC) in joint arthroplasty over recent decades, current evidence for prophylactic use of ALBC to reduce risk of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is insufficient. OBJECTIVE To compare the rate of revision attributed to PJI following primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) using ALBC vs plain bone cement. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This international cohort study used data from 14 national or regional joint arthroplasty registries in Australia, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy, New Zealand, Norway, Romania, Sweden, Switzerland, the Netherlands, the UK, and the US. The study included primary TKAs for osteoarthritis registered from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2020, and followed-up until December 31, 2021. Data analysis was performed from April to September 2023. EXPOSURE Primary TKA with ALBC vs plain bone cement. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was risk of 1-year revision for PJI. Using a distributed data network analysis method, data were harmonized, and a cumulative revision rate was calculated (1 - Kaplan-Meier), and Cox regression analyses were performed within the 10 registries using both cement types. A meta-analysis was then performed to combine all aggregated data and evaluate the risk of 1-year revision for PJI and all causes. RESULTS Among 2 168 924 TKAs included, 93% were performed with ALBC. Most TKAs were performed in female patients (59.5%) and patients aged 65 to 74 years (39.9%), fully cemented (92.2%), and in the 2015 to 2020 period (62.5%). All participating registries reported a cumulative 1-year revision rate for PJI of less than 1% following primary TKA with ALBC (range, 0.21%-0.80%) and with plain bone cement (range, 0.23%-0.70%). The meta-analyses based on adjusted Cox regression for 1 917 190 TKAs showed no statistically significant difference at 1 year in risk of revision for PJI (hazard rate ratio, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.89-1.52) or for all causes (hazard rate ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.89-1.40) among TKAs performed with ALBC vs plain bone cement. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this study, the risk of revision for PJI was similar between ALBC and plain bone cement following primary TKA. Any additional costs of ALBC and its relative value in reducing revision risk should be considered in the context of the overall health care delivery system

The use of antibiotic-loaded bone cement and systemic antibiotic prophylactic use in 2,971,357 primary total knee arthroplasties from 2010 to 2020: an international register-based observational study among countries in Africa, Europe, North America, and Oceania.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Antibiotic-loaded bone cement (ALBC) and systemic antibiotic prophylaxis (SAP) have been used to reduce periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) rates. We investigated the use of ALBC and SAP in primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). PATIENTS AND METHODS This observational study is based on 2,971,357 primary TKAs reported in 2010-2020 to national/regional joint arthroplasty registries in Australia, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Romania, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, the UK, and the USA. Aggregate-level data on trends and types of bone cement, antibiotic agents, and doses and duration of SAP used was extracted from participating registries. RESULTS ALBC was used in 77% of the TKAs with variation ranging from 100% in Norway to 31% in the USA. Palacos R+G was the most common (62%) ALBC type used. The primary antibiotic used in ALBC was gentamicin (94%). Use of ALBC in combination with SAP was common practice (77%). Cefazolin was the most common (32%) SAP agent. The doses and duration of SAP used varied from one single preoperative dosage as standard practice in Bolzano, Italy (98%) to 1-day 4 doses in Norway (83% of the 40,709 TKAs reported to the Norwegian arthroplasty register). CONCLUSION The proportion of ALBC usage in primary TKA varies internationally, with gentamicin being the most common antibiotic. ALBC in combination with SAP was common practice, with cefazolin the most common SAP agent. The type of ALBC and type, dose, and duration of SAP varied among participating countries

Lower 5-year cup re-revision rate for dual mobility cups compared with unipolar cups: report of 15,922 cup revision cases in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (2007–2016)

Background and purpose — During revision hip arthroplasty the dual mobility cup (DMC) is widely used to prevent dislocation despite limited knowledge of implant longevity. We determined the 5-year cup re-revision rates of DMC compared with unipolar cups (UC) following cup revisions in the Netherlands. Patients and methods — 17,870 cup revisions (index cup revision) were registered in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register during 2007–2016. Due to missing data 1,948 revisions were excluded and the remaining 15,922 were divided into 2 groups: DMC (n = 4,637) and UC (n = 11,285). Crude competing risk and multivariable Cox regression analysis were performed with cup re-revision for any reason as endpoint. Adjustments were made for known patient characteristics. Results — The use of DMC (in index cup revisions) increased from 23% (373/1,606) in 2010 to 47% (791/1,685) in 2016. Patients in the index DMC cup revision group generally had a higher ASA score and the cups were mainly cemented (89%). The main indication for index cup revision was loosening. In the DMC group dislocation was the 2nd main indication for revision. Overall 5-year cup re-revision rate was 3.5% (95% CI 3.0–4.2) for DMC and 6.7% (CI 6.3–7.2) for UC. Cup re-revision for dislocation was more frequent in the UC group compared with the DMC group (32% [261/814] versus 18% [28/152]). Stratified analyses for cup fixation showed a higher cup re-revision rate for UC in both the cemented and uncemented group. Multivariable regression analyses showed a lower risk for cup re-revision for DMC compared with UC (HR 0.5 [CI 0.4–0.6]). Interpretation — The use of DMC in cup revisions increased over time with differences in patient characteristics. The 5-year cup re-revision rates for DMC were statistically significantly lower than for UC