Operation rate is more than double the revision rate for periprosthetic femur fractures

A Systematic Review of Data Collection by National Joint Replacement Registries: What Opportunities Exist for Enhanced Data Collection and Analysis?

BACKGROUND

National joint replacement registries assist surgeons and hospitals with guiding decision making and quality of care. The data points collected are essential to interpret and analyze data and to understand confounding variables and other sources of bias, which can impair retrospective observational research. The aim of this study was to review all national joint replacement registries to assess what data points are recorded, and in what manner, for primary and revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) so that improvements can be made to enhance data collection, interpretation, and analysis.

METHODS

All national registries were identified through Internet and publication search and contacted to invite participation. Data collection forms for both primary and revision THA and TKA were requested. Data collected were entered into an Excel spreadsheet.

RESULTS

The study group for primary and revision THA consisted of 28 national registries, with 26 agreeing to participate. The study group for primary TKA consisted of 27 national registries, with 24 agreeing to participate. Patient identification details were recorded uniformly. Only a minority recorded patient details beyond American Society of Anesthesiologists and body mass index. Most registries did not record surgeon variables: who actually performed or assisted the procedure and their level of training. There was variation in the degree of detail recorded for diagnosis, mostly regarding secondary causes of osteoarthritis and fracture. The details regarding case complexity were limited. Half recorded previous operations, and fewer recorded bone defects. The location of knee arthritis, preoperative limb alignment, and deformities were rarely recorded. Surgical approach and technological adjuncts were routinely collected, but few other details on the surgical technique were recorded. Implant details and fixation were uniformly collected, although a minority recorded specific details, including cement antibiotic or cementing technique. It was uncommon to record whether additional or adjunctive procedures were concurrently performed. Approximately half the registries lacked a revision specific form. The majority recorded reoperations in addition to revision procedures. Patient, surgeon, case, and postoperative details were recorded similar to primary procedures. There was variation in the degree of details recorded for the reasons underlying the revision +/- reoperation, with most recording greater detail for infection and fracture. Many included details on case complexity and bone defects, including the severity, classification, and how the defect was managed. The majority recorded the specific revision procedure that was performed (total or partial), the fixation used, and the components removed or revised. Other specific aspects of fixation including acetabular screws, cone or sleeve use, stems, and augments were less commonly recorded.

CONCLUSION

Substantial data are recorded by all registries, although each one is different. Data solicited lack many patient factors, surgeon variables, case complexity, and surgical techniques. Separate revision forms are not universal, and many registries do not record reoperation procedures, specific causes of revision, and the revision construct.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II, therapeutic study. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Periprosthetic Fractures around Total Hip Replacement-Is There a Rush to Fix?

BACKGROUND

Periprosthetic fractures now account for 14.1% of all hip revisions. Surgery is often highly specialised and can involve the revision of implants, fixation of fractures, or a combination of both. Delays to surgery are frequent as specialist equipment and surgeons are often required. UK guidelines are currently moving in favour of early surgery in a similar way to the neck of femur fractures, despite a lack of evidential consensus.

METHODS

A retrospective review of all patients who underwent surgery for periprosthetic fractures around a total hip replacement (THR) at a single unit between 2012 and 2019 was performed. Risk factors for complications, length of stay (LOS), and time to surgery data were collected and analysed using regression analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 88 patients met the inclusion criteria: 63 (72%) were treated with open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) and 25 (28%) underwent revision THR. Baseline characteristics were similar in both the ORIF and revision groups. Revision surgery was more likely to be delayed than ORIF owing to the need for specialist equipment and personnel (median 143 h vs. 120 h, p = 0.04). Median LOS was 17 days if operated within 72 h and 27 days if delayed beyond this (p < 0.0001), but there was no increase in 90-day mortality (p = 0.66), HDU admission (p = 0.33), or perioperative complications (p = 0.27) with delay beyond 72 h.

CONCLUSION

Periprosthetic fractures are complex and require a highly specialised approach. Delaying surgery does not result in increased mortality or complications but does increase length of stay. Further multicentre research into this area is required.

What Is the Outcome of the First Revision Procedure of Primary THA for Osteoarthritis? A Study From the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry

BACKGROUND

Joint arthroplasty registries traditionally report survivorship outcomes mainly on primary joint arthroplasty. The outcome of first revision procedures is less commonly reported, because large numbers of primary procedures are required to analyze a sufficient number of first revision procedures. Additionally, adequate linkage of primary procedures to revisions and mortality is required. When undertaking revision hip surgery, it is important for surgeons to understand the outcomes of these procedures to better inform patients.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

Using data from a large national joint registry, we asked: (1) What is the overall rate of revision of the first aseptic revision procedure for a primary THA? (2) Does the rate of revision of the first revision vary by the diagnosis for the first revision? (3) What is the mortality after the first revision, and does it vary by the reason for first revision?

METHODS

The Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry longitudinally maintains data on all primary and revision joint arthroplasties, with nearly 100% capture. The analyses for this study were performed on primary THA procedures in patients with a diagnosis of osteoarthritis up to December 31, 2020, who had undergone subsequent revision. We excluded all primary THAs involving metal-on-metal and ceramic-on-metal bearing surfaces and prostheses with exchangeable necks because these designs may have particular issues associated with revisions, such as extensive soft tissue destruction, that are not seen with conventional bearings, making a comparative analysis of the first revision involving these bearing surfaces more complicated. Metal-on-metal bearing surfaces have not been used in Australia since 2017. We identified 17,046 first revision procedures from the above study population and after exclusions, included 13,713 first revision procedures in the analyses. The mean age at the first revision was 71 ± 11 years, and 55% (7496 of 13,713) of the patients were women. The median (IQR) time from the primary procedure to the first revision was 3 years (0.3 to 7.3), ranging from 0.8 years for the diagnosis of dislocation and instability to 10 years for osteolysis. There was some variation depending on the reason for the first revision. For example, patients undergoing revision for fracture were slightly older (mean age 76 ± 11 years) and patients undergoing revision for dislocation were more likely to be women (61% [2213 of 3620]). The registry has endeavored to standardize the sequence of revisions and uses a numerical approach to describe revision procedures. The first revision is the revision of a primary procedure, the second revision is the revision of the first revision, and so on. We therefore described the outcome of the first revision as the cumulative percent second revision. The outcome measure was the cumulative percent revision, which was defined using Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship to describe the time to the second revision. Hazard ratios from Cox proportional hazards models, adjusting for age and gender, were performed to compare the revision rates among groups. When possible, the cumulative percent second revision at the longest follow-up timepoint was determined with the available data, and when there were insufficient numbers, we used appropriate earlier time periods.

RESULTS

The cumulative percent second revision at 18 years was 26% (95% confidence interval [CI] 24% to 28%). When comparing the outcome of the first revision by reason, prosthesis dislocation or instability had the highest rate of second revision compared with the other reasons for first revision. Dual-mobility prostheses had a lower rate of second revision for dislocation or instability than head sizes 32 mm or smaller and when compared to constrained prostheses after 3 months. There was no difference between dual-mobility prostheses and head sizes larger than 32 mm. There were no differences in the rate of second revision when first revisions for loosening, periprosthetic fracture, and osteolysis were compared. If cemented femoral fixation was performed at the time of the first revision, there was a higher cumulative percent second revision for loosening than cementless fixation from 6 months to 6 years, and after this time, there was no difference. The overall mortality after a first revision of primary conventional THA was 1% at 30 days, 2% at 90 days, 5% at 1 year, and 40% at 10 years. A first revision for periprosthetic fracture had the highest mortality at all timepoints compared with other reasons for the first revision.

CONCLUSION

Larger head sizes and dual-mobility cups may help reduce further revisions for dislocation, and the use of cementless stems for a first revision for loosening seems advantageous. Surgeons may counsel patients about the higher risk of death after first revision procedures, particularly if the first revision is performed for periprosthetic fracture.Level of Evidence Level III, therapeutic study.

Periprosthetic fracture as a late mode of failure of the Anatomique Benoist Girard II femoral prosthesis

Aim

The Anatomique Benoist Girard (ABG) II femoral implant was a commonly used stem for primary total hip replacement (THR) at our institution (Launceston, Tasmania Australia). We identified peri‐prosthetic fracture as the main cause of late failure.

Methods

The late periprosthetic fracture rate for ABG II implants was reviewed with national statistics, using Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) data. National revision rates for periprosthetic fracture were used to compare ABG II with all other cementless femoral stems.

Result

ABG II stems accounted for 1% (2719 implants) of all femoral stem implants in Australia during the 12‐year review period, compared to 23% (587 implants) in Launceston Hospitals. Although the Launceston cumulative percent revision rate for the ABG II stem was lower than the National rate at all time points, the reasons for revision were similar. The most common reason for revision of ABG II was fracture (56.8%), followed by loosening (15.3%). This differs from the reasons for revision in other cementless prostheses (loosening 23.9%, fracture 20.8%, dislocation 18.7%). Cumulative percent revision rates from late periprosthetic fracture, were higher for the ABG II stem than other cementless femoral prostheses.

Conclusion

This review of the AOANJRR has confirmed a local and national higher revision rate of the ABG II stem due to late periprosthetic fracture compared with other cementless stems. Stem design must be considered to reduce the risk of late periprosthetic fracture.