Are Revision Hip Arthroplasty Patients at Higher Risk for Venous Thromboembolic Events Than Primary Hip Arthroplasty Patients?

Background

The purpose of this study is to determine whether revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) is associated with increased rates of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) when compared to primary THA.

How Have Alternative Bearings and Modularity Affected Revision Rates in Total Hip Arthroplasty?

Background

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) continues to be one of the most successful surgical procedures in the medical field. However, over the last two decades, the use of modularity and alternative bearings in THA has become routine. Given the known problems associated with hard-on-hard bearing couples, including taper failures with more modular stem designs, local and systemic effects from metal-on-metal bearings, and fractures with ceramic-on-ceramic bearings, it is not known whether in aggregate the survivorship of these implants is better or worse than the metal-on-polyethylene bearings that they sought to replace.

Questions/purposes

Have alternative bearings (metal-on-metal and ceramic-on-ceramic) and implant modularity decreased revision rates of primary THAs?

Methods

In this systematic review of MEDLINE and EMBASE, we used several Boolean search strings for each topic and surveyed national registry data from English-speaking countries. Clinical research (Level IV or higher) with ≥ 5 years of followup was included; retrieval studies and case reports were excluded. We included registry data at ≥ 7 years followup. A total of 32 studies (and five registry reports) on metal-on-metal, 19 studies (and five registry reports) on ceramic-on-ceramic, and 20 studies (and one registry report) on modular stem designs met inclusion criteria and were evaluated in detail. Insufficient data were available on metal-on-ceramic and ceramic-on-metal implants, and monoblock acetabular designs were evaluated in another recent systematic review so these were not evaluated here.

Results

There was no evidence in the literature that alternative bearings (either metal-on-metal or ceramic-on-ceramic) in THA have decreased revision rates. Registry data, however, showed that large head metal-on-metal implants have lower 7- to 10-year survivorship than do standard bearings. In THA, modular exchangeable femoral neck implants had a lower 10-year survival rate in both literature reviews and in registry data compared with combined registry primary THA implant survivorship.

Conclusions

Despite improvements in implant technology, there is no evidence that alternative bearings or modularity have resulted in decreased THA revision rates after 5 years. In fact, both large head metal-on-metal THA and added modularity may well lower survivorship and should only be used in select cases in which the mission cannot be achieved without it. Based on this experience, followup and/or postmarket surveillance studies should have a duration of at least 5 years before introducing new alternative bearings or modularity on a widespread scale.     

Is Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty a Reasonable Alternative for Revision Arthroplasty?

Background  

Reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) improves function in selected patients with complex shoulder problems. However, we presume patient function would vary if performed primarily or for revision and would vary with other patient-specific factors.     

Are We Appropriately Compensated by Relative Value Units for Primary vs Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty?

Background

Relative value units (RVUs) are used to evaluate the effort required for providing a service to patients in order to determine compensation. Thus, more complicated cases, like revision arthroplasty cases, should yield a greater compensation. However, there are limited data comparing RVUs to the time required to complete the service. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to compare the (1) mean RVUs, (2) mean operative times, and (3) mean RVU/minute between primary and revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) and (4) perform an individualized idealized surgeon annual cost difference analysis.

Is a Revision a Revision? An Analysis of National Arthroplasty Registries’ Definitions of Revision

Background

The reported survival of implants depends on the definition used for the endpoint, usually revision. When screening through registry reports from different countries, it appears that revision is defined quite differently.

Questions/purposes

The purposes of this study were to compare the definitions of revision among registry reports and to apply common clinical scenarios to these definitions.

Methods

We downloaded or requested reports of all available national joint registries. Of the 23 registries we identified, 13 had published reports that were available in English and were beyond the pilot phase. We searched these registries’ reports for the definitions of the endpoint, mostly revision. We then applied the following scenarios to the definition of revision and analyzed if those scenarios were regarded as a revision: (A) wound revision without any addition or removal of implant components (such as hematoma evacuation); (B) exchange of head and/or liner (like for infection); (C) isolated secondary patella resurfacing; and (D) secondary patella resurfacing with a routine liner exchange.

Results

All registries looked separately at the characteristic of primary implantation without a revision and 11 of 13 registers reported on the characteristics of revisions. Regarding the definition of revision, there were considerable differences across the reports. In 11 of 13 reports, the primary outcome was revision of the implant. In one registry the primary endpoint was “reintervention/revision” while another registry reported separately on “failure” and “reoperations”. In three registries, the definition of the outcome was not provided, however in one report a results list gave an indication for the definition of the outcome. Wound revision without any addition or removal of implant components (scenario A) was considered a revision in three of nine reports that provided a clear definition on this question, whereas two others did not provide enough information to allow this determination. Exchange of the head and/or liner (like for infection; scenario B) was considered a revision in 11 of 11; isolated secondary patella resurfacing (scenario C) in six of eight; and secondary patella resurfacing with routine liner exchange (scenario D) was considered a revision in nine of nine reports.

Conclusions

Revision, which is the most common main endpoint used by arthroplasty registries, is not universally defined. This implies that some reoperations that are considered a revision in one registry are not considered a revision in another registry. Therefore, comparisons of implant performance using data from different registries have to be performed with caution. We suggest that registries work to harmonize their definitions of revision to help facilitate comparisons of results across the world’s arthroplasty registries.     

Does Metabolic Syndrome Impact the Risk of Reoperation,Revision, or Complication After Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty?

BackgroundMetabolic syndrome (MetS) is an increasingly frequent condition characterized by insulin resistance, abdominal obesity, hypertension, and dyslipidemia. This study evaluated implant survivorship, complications, and clinical outcomes of primary TKAs performed in patients who have MetS.MethodsUtilizing our institutional total joint registry, 2,063 primary TKAs were performed in patients with a diagnosis of MetS according to the World Health Organization criteria. MetS patients were matched 1:1 based on age, sex, and surgical year to those who did not have the condition. The World Health Organization’s body mass index (BMI) classification was utilized to evaluate the effect of obesity within MetS patients. Kaplan–Meier methods were utilized to determine implant survivorship. Clinical outcomes were assessed with Knee Society scores. The mean follow-up was 5 years.ResultsMetS and non-MetS patients did not have significant differences in 5-year implant survivorship free from any reoperation (P = .7), any revision (P = .2), and reoperation for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI; P = .2). When stratifying, patients with MetS and BMI >40 had significantly decreased 5-year survivorship free from any revision (95 versus 98%, respectively; hazard ratio = 2.1, P = .005) and reoperation for PJI (97 versus 99%, respectively; hazard ratio = 2.2, P = .02). Both MetS and non-MetS groups experienced significant improvements in Knee Society Scores (77 versus 78, respectively; P < .001) that were not significantly different (P = .3).ConclusionMetS did not significantly increase the risk of any reoperation after TKA; however, MetS patients with BMI >40 had a two-fold risk of any revision and reoperation for PJI. These results suggest that obesity is an important condition within MetS criteria and remains an independent risk factor.Level of EvidenceLevel 3, Case-control study.     

Is Conversion TKA a Primary or Revision? Clinical Course and Complication Risks Approximating Revision TKA Rather Than Primary TKA

BackgroundConversion total knee arthroplasty (convTKA) is associated with increased resource utilization and costs compared with primary TKA. The purpose of this study is to compare 1) surgical time, 2) hospitalization length (LOS), 3) complications, 4) infection, and 5) readmissions in patients undergoing convTKA to both primary TKA and revision TKA patients.MethodsThe American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project database was queried from 2008 to 2018. Patients undergoing convTKA (n = 1,665, 0.5%) were defined by selecting Current Procedural Terminology codes 27,447 and 20,680. We compared the outcomes of interest to patients undergoing primary TKA (n = 348,624) and to patients undergoing aseptic revision TKA (n = 8213). Univariate and multivariate logistic regression was performed to identify the relative risk of postoperative complications.ResultsCompared with patients undergoing primary TKA, convTKA patients were younger (P < .001), had lower body mass index (P < .001), and were less likely to be American Society of Anesthesiologist class III/IV (P < .001). These patients had significantly longer operative times (122.6 vs 90.3 min, P < .001), increased LOS (P < .001), increased risks for any complication (OR 1.94), surgical site infection (OR 1.84), reoperation (OR 2.18), and readmissions (OR 1.60) after controlling for confounders. Compared with aseptic TKA revisions, operative times were shorter (122.6 vs 148.2 min, P < .001), but LOS (2.91 vs 2.95 days, P = .698) was similar. Furthermore, relative risk for any complication (P = .350), surgical site infection (P = .964), reoperation (P = .296), and readmissions (P = .844) did not differ.ConclusionConversion TKA procedures share more similarities with revision TKA rather than primary TKA procedures. Without a distinct procedural and diagnosis-related group, there are financial disincentives to care for these complex patients.Level of EvidenceII.     

Single-Stage Revision Arthroplasty for Infection—An Underutilized Treatment Strategy

Background

The burden of revision arthroplasty surgery for infection is rising as the rate of primary arthroplasty surgery increases. Infected arthroplasty rates are now relatively low, but the sheer increase in volume is leading to considerable patient morbidity and significant increases in costs to the health care system. Single-stage revision for infection is one of the several accepted treatment options, but the indications and results are debated. This review aims to clarify the current evidence.

Is Total Hip Arthroplasty after Hip Arthrodesis as Good as Primary Arthroplasty?

Background  

Conversion of hip arthrodesis to a THA reportedly provides a reasonable solution, improving function, reducing back and knee pain, and slowing degeneration of neighboring joints associated with a hip fusion. Patients generally are satisfied with conversion despite the fact that range of mobility, muscle strength, leg-length discrepancy (LLD), persistence of limp, and need for assistive walking aids generally are worse than those for conventional primary THA.     

When Do Patient-reported Assessments Peak after Revision Knee Arthroplasty?

Background  

The best timing for patient visits after revision TKA is unclear. Predictors of pain and function reported in the literature typically look at the influence at a given time that might not be ideal if the score is not at a peak or the earliest possible time. Moreover, most reports of predictors include revisions for infection, which typically have a poorer outcome, or for other indications with variable outcome.     

Does Intrathecal Morphine in Spinal Anesthesia Have a Role in Modern Multimodal Analgesia for Primary Total Joint Arthroplasty?

Background

Intrathecal morphine (ITM) combined with bupivacaine spinal anesthesia can improve postoperative pain, but has potential side effects of postoperative nausea/vomiting (PONV) and pruritus. With the use of multimodal analgesia and regional anesthetic techniques, postoperative pain control has improved significantly to a point where ITM may be avoided in total joint arthroplasty (TJA).

Do Conversion Total Hip Arthroplasty Yield Comparable Results to Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty?

Background

The incidence of hip fractures is growing with the increasing elderly population. Typically, hip fractures are treated with open reduction internal fixation, hemiarthroplasty, or total hip arthroplasty (THA). Failed hip fracture fixation is often salvaged by conversion THA. The total number of conversion THA procedures is also supplemented by its use in treating different failed surgical hip treatments such as acetabular fracture fixation, Perthes disease, slipped capital femoral epiphysis, and developmental dysplasia of the hip. As the incidence of conversion THA rises, it is important to understand the perioperative characteristics of conversion THA. Some studies have demonstrated higher complication rates in conversion THAs than primary THAs, but research distinguishing the 2 groups is still limited.

Can Tantalum Cones Provide Fixation in Complex Revision Knee Arthroplasty?

Background  

The best method for managing large bone defects during revision knee arthroplasty is unknown. Metaphyseal fixation using porous tantalum cones has been proposed for severe bone loss. Whether this approach achieves osseointegration with low complication rates is unclear.     

What Are the Causes of Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty in Japan?

Background

There is limited information regarding the cause of revision TKA in Asia, especially Japan. Owing to differences in patient backgrounds and lifestyles, the modes of TKA failures in Asia may differ from those in Western countries.

Questions/purposes

We therefore determined (1) causes of revision TKA in a cohort of Japanese patients with revision TKA and (2) whether patient demographic features and underlying diagnosis of primary TKA are associated with the causes of revision TKA.

Methods

We assessed all revision TKA procedures performed at five major centers in Hokkaido from 2006 to 2011 for the causes of failures. Demographic data and underlying diagnosis for index primary TKA of the revision cases were compared to those of randomly selected primary TKAs during the same period.

Results

One hundred forty revision TKAs and 4047 primary TKAs were performed at the five centers, indicating a revision burden of 3.3%. The most common cause of revision TKA was mechanical loosening (40%) followed by infection (24%), wear/osteolysis (9%), instability (9%), implant failure (6%), periprosthetic fracture (4%), and other reasons (8%). The mean age of patients with periprosthetic fracture was older (77 versus 72 years) and the male proportion in patients with infection was higher (33% versus 19%) than those of patients in the primary TKA group. There was no difference in BMI between primary TKAs and any type of revision TKA except other causes.

Conclusions

The revision burden at the five referral centers in Hokkaido was 3.3%, and the most common cause of revision TKA was mechanical loosening followed by infection. Demographic data such as age and sex might be associated with particular causes of revision TKA.     

Leg-Length Discrepancy After Revision Hip Arthroplasty: Are Modular Stems Superior?

We retrospectively reviewed data for 79 consecutive patients who underwent revision hip arthroplasty using cementless femoral stems at our center between September 2008 and November 2010. Two cohorts were included, one using MP (modular) femoral stems and the other using Wagner (monoblock) femoral stems. We assessed leg-length discrepancy (LLD) before and after revision and compared the occurrence of leg-length inequality between the 2 cohorts. We found that the incidence of LLD was high in revision hip arthroplasty and that leg shortening was more common than lengthening. Both acetabular and femoral sides contributed to postoperative LLD. Appropriate placement of the femoral components was most critical in adjusting LLD. We also found that compared with monoblock stems, modular stems made adjustment of postoperative leg length easier.     

Modifiable Risk Factors Are Common in Early Revision Hip and Knee Arthroplasty

Background

Obesity, smoking, uncontrolled diabetes, and poor dental health are modifiable risk factors for revision total joint arthroplasty. To protect patients from revision surgery while also reducing cost, some joint arthroplasty practices use these conditions as contraindications until they are improved. However, this practice is variable among joint arthroplasty surgeons. We hypothesize that a relatively high rate of revision arthroplasty patients had modifiable risk factors at the time of primary surgery.

Does Ischial Screw Fixation Improve Mechanical Stability in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty?

Ischial screw fixation, albeit technically challenging, is postulated to provide additional mechanical stability in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). Hemipelvis specimens were prepared to simulate revision THA, and an acetabular component with supplemental screw fixation was implanted. Three configurations were tested: 2 dome screws alone, 2 dome screws plus an additional screw within the dome, and 2 dome screws plus an ischial screw. Force displacement data were acquired during mechanical testing. An increase in mechanical stability was observed in acetabular components with supplemental screw fixation into either the posterior column or ischium (P ≤ .031) compared to isolated dome fixation. In addition, supplemental ischial screw fixation may provide a modest advantage over a screw placed posteroinferiorly within the acetabular dome during revision THA.     

What Are the Indications for Implant Revision in Three-component Total Ankle Arthroplasty?

BackgroundGiven the increasing usage of total ankle arthroplasty (TAA), a better understanding of the reasons leading to implant revision and the factors that might influence those indications is necessary to identify at-risk patients.Question/purposesUsing a single-design three-component ankle prosthesis, we asked: (1) What is the cumulative incidence of implant revision at 5 and 10 years? (2) What are the indications for implant revision in our population? (3) What factors are associated with an increased likelihood of implant revision during the time frame in question?MethodsBetween 2003 and 2017, primary TAA using a single-design three-component ankle implant was performed by or under the supervision of the implant designer in 1006 patients (1074 ankles) aged between 17 and 88 years to treat end-stage ankle osteoarthritis. No other TAA systems were used during the study period at the investigators’ institution. In 68 patients with bilateral surgery, only the first TAA was considered. Of the patients treated with the study implant, 2% (16 of 1006) were lost to follow-up 5 to 14 years after TAA and were not known to have died or undergone revision, and 5% (55 of 1006) were deceased due to reasons unrelated to the procedure, leaving 935 patients for evaluation in this retrospective study. The mean (range) follow-up for the included patients was 8.8 ± 4.2 (0.2 to 16.8) years. Implant revision was performed 0.5 to 13.2 years after TAA in 12% (121 of 1006) of our patients. Survivorship free from revision was calculated using cumulative incidence (competing risks) survivorship, with death as a competing risk. The reason for each revision was classified into one of six categories according to a modified version of a previously published protocol: aseptic loosening, cyst formation, instability, deep infection, technical error, and pain without another cause. Two foot and ankle surgeons reviewed the records of all patients who underwent implant revision and assigned each patient’s reason for revision to one of the six categories. The decision for assigning each patient to one of the six categories was made based on a consensus agreement. A subgroup classification of preoperative ankle alignment (neutral, mild, and major deformity) and variables of age, sex, BMI, etiology of ankle osteoarthritis, and number of preoperative and intraoperative hindfoot or midfoot procedures were used in a multinomial logistic regression and Cox regression analysis to estimate their association with reason for revision and implant survival until revision.ResultsThe cumulative incidence of implant revision at the mean (range) follow-up time of 8.8 ± 4.2 years (0.2 to 16.8) was 9.8% (95% confidence interval 7.7% to 11.8%). Five and 10 years after TAA, cumulative incidence was 4.8% (95% CI 3.4 to 6.1) and 12.1% (95% CI 9.7% to 14.5%), respectively. The most common reason for revision was instability (34% [41 of 121]), followed by aseptic loosening of one or more metallic components (28% [34 of 121]), pain without another cause (12% [14 of 121]), cyst formation (10% [12 of 121]), deep infection (9% [11 of 121]), and technical error (7% [9 of 121]). Ankles with a major hindfoot deformity before TAA were more likely to undergo revision than ankles with a minor deformity (hazard ratio 1.9 [95% CI 1.2 to 3.0]; p = 0.007) or neutral alignment (HR 2.5 [95% CI 1.5 to 4.4]; p = 0.001). A preoperative hindfoot valgus deformity increased revision probability compared with a varus deformity (HR 2.1 [95% CI 1.4 to 3.4]; p = 0.001).ConclusionInstability was a more common reason for implant revision after TAA with this three-component design than previously reported. All causes inducing either a varus or valgus hindfoot deformity must be meticulously addressed during TAA to prevent revision of this implant. Future studies from surgeons/institutions not involved in this implant design are needed to confirm these findings and to further investigate why a substantial number of patients had pain of unknown cause prompting revision.Level of EvidenceLevel III, therapeutic study.