Hip Hemiarthroplasty for Fractured Neck of Femur Revised to Total Hip Arthroplasty: Outcomes Are Influenced by Patient Age Not Articulation Options

BackgroundHip hemiarthroplasty is the most common arthroplasty option for fractured neck of femur (FNOF). Revision to total hip arthroplasty (THA) is occasionally required. This study aimed to assess the outcome of hemiarthroplasty revised to THA and to assess the impact of femoral head size, dual mobility (DM), and constrained liners.MethodsAll aseptic 1^st revisions reported to the Australian Joint Replacement Registry after hemiarthroplasty performed for FNOF when a THA was used as the revision procedure were included from September 1999 to December 2019. The primary outcome measure was the cumulative percent revision for all-causes and dislocation. The impact of prosthesis factors on revision THA was assessed: standard head THA (≤32 mm), large head THA (≥36 mm), DM, and constrained liners. Outcomes were compared using Kaplan Meyer and competing risk.ResultsThere were 96,861 hemiarthroplasties performed, with 985 revised to THA. The most common reasons for 1^st revision were loosening (49.3%), fracture (17.7%), and dislocation (11.0%). Of the hemiarthroplasty procedures revised to THA, 76 had a 2^nd revision. The most common reasons for 2^nd revision were fracture (27.6%), dislocation (26.3%), loosening (23.7%), and infection (18.4%). Femoral head size, DM, or constrained liner use did not alter the incidence of all-cause 2^nd revision. This did not change when solely looking at patients still alive. A 2^nd revision was more likely in patients aged <75 years.ConclusionThe outcome of hemiarthroplasty performed for FNOF revised to THA is influenced by patient age, not by the articulation used.     

A Modular Head-Neck Adapter System and Ceramic Heads in Revision Hip Arthroplasty: A Registry Study on 354 Implants

BackgroundFive- to 10-year outcomes of a modular head-neck adapter system with ceramic heads in revision hip arthroplasty on large populations are still lacking. A registry study about modular adapter system with Delta ceramic head in revisions was designed, aiming to assess (1) the survival rates of the device, (2) the reasons for re-revisions of the device, and (3) a comparison to factory assembled titanium sleeve and Delta head cohort in revision hips.MethodsUsing a regional arthroplasty registry, we investigated the modular adapter system with a ceramic head in revision hips. Demographics, implant features, and reasons for revision were recorded. Survival rates and reasons for re-revision were assessed. The modular adapter system with the ceramic ball was compared to a factory-assembled ceramic titanium-sleeved head in revisions, acting as a control group. There were 354 revisions included at a mean follow-up of 5 years (range, 0 to 13).ResultsThe 5- and 7-year survival rates were 87.9% and 86.9%, respectively. Dislocations (2.8%) and cup aseptic loosening (4.2%) were the 2 most frequent reasons for re-revision. No breakage of the adapter system or the ceramic head occurred. A femoral neck failed (0.3%). No implant features, offset (P = .088) or skirted (P = .870) tapers, impacted on failures. No differences between the 2 cohorts were found regarding survival rates (P = .696) and reasons for re-revision (dislocations, P = .983; cup aseptic loosening, P = .296).ConclusionThe modular head neck adapter system with a ceramic head seems to be a valid option in revisions at 5 and 7 years, without additional risk of implant breakage in this registry.     

The Effect of Size for a Hydroxyapatite-Coated Cementless Implant on Component Revision in Total Hip Arthroplasty: An Analysis of 41,265 Stems

BackgroundThe cementless Corail is one of the most commonly used stems in total hip arthroplasty (THA). The aim of this study was to investigate whether there was a difference in revision rate for smaller stems.MethodsAll primary THA procedures recorded by the Australian Joint Replacement Registry from September 1999 to December 2017 performed for osteoarthritis using the Corail stem, a cementless acetabular cup, modern bearing surfaces (ceramic/ceramic, ceramic/cross-linked polyethylene, and metal/cross-linked polyethylene), and 28 mm, 32 mm, and 36 mm head sizes were included. The primary outcome measure was femoral component revision. Data were analyzed and adjusted for age, gender, and head size. Further analysis investigated the effects of surgical approach.ResultsThere was 41,265 primary THAs recorded. The cumulative percent revision (CPR) at 13 years was 7.7% (5.5, 10.7) for stem sizes 8 and 9 and 3.0% (2.4, 3.8) for sizes 10-20 (P < .001). When adjusted for age and gender, the sizes 8 and 9 collared (hazard ratio [HR]: 6.22 [3.84-10.06], P < .001) and collarless (HR: 3.28 [2.41-4.45], P < .001) had a higher CPR than the collared and collarless size 10-20. The size 8 and 9 stems performed with an anterior approach had the highest CPR (HR: 14.44 [6.21-33.56], P < .001). The main reason for revision of size 8 and 9 femoral stems was loosening (65.2%, compared to 31.5% for 10-20 femoral stems).ConclusionsSmaller Corail stems have 4 times the rate of revision compared with the larger femoral sizes with loosening being the most common diagnosis. This is most evident when using an anterior approach.     

Early,Mid-Term,and Late-Term Aseptic Femoral Revisions After THA: Comparing Causes,Complications, and Resource Utilization

BackgroundRegistry data suggest increasing rates of early revisions after total hip arthroplasty (THA). We sought to analyze modes of failure over time after index THA to identify risk factors for early revision.MethodsWe identified 208 aseptic femoral revision THAs performed between February 2011 and July 2019 using an institutional database. We compared demographics, diagnoses, complications, and resource utilization between aseptic femoral revision THA occurring within 90 days (early), 91 days to 2 years (mid), and greater than 2 years (late) after index arthroplasty.ResultsEarly revisions were 33% of revisions at our institution in the time period analyzed. Periprosthetic fractures were 81% of early, 27% of mid, and 21% of late femoral revisions (P < .01). Women were more likely to have early revisions than men (75% vs 53% of mid and 48% of late revisions; P < .01). Patients who had early revisions were older (67.97 ± 10.06) at the time of primary surgery than those who had mid and late revisions (64.41 ± 12.10 and 57.63 ± 12.52, respectively, P < .01). Index implants were uncemented in 99% of early, 96% of mid, and 64% of late revisions (P < .01). Early revisions had longer postoperative length of stay (4.4 ± 3.3) than mid and late revisions (3.0 ± 2.2 and 3.7 ± 2.1, respectively, P = .02). In addition, 58% of early revisions were discharged to an inpatient facility compared with 36% of mid and 41% of late revisions (P = .03).ConclusionEarly aseptic femoral revisions largely occur in older women with uncemented primary implants and primarily due to periprosthetic fractures. Reducing the incidence of periprosthetic fractures is critical to decreasing the large health care utilization of early revisions.     

Anterior Revision Hip Arthroplasty is Associated With Higher Wound Complications but Fewer Dislocations Compared to Posterior Revision Hip Surgery

BackgroundWound complication after primary direct anterior (DAA) hip arthroplasty has been reported in the literature but there has been no comparison regarding revision anterior vs revision posterior (PA) hip arthroplasty. The authors hypothesize that anterior approach revision surgery may have increased wound complications compared with posterior hip revisions and also report on secondary outcome metrics.MethodsNinety-nine DAA and 191 PA revisions were included for analysis. Preoperative demographic characteristics, indication for revision, operative details, type of revision performed, components utilized, and postoperative complications were compared between DAA and PA groups including multivariate analysis.ResultsThe DAA cohort demonstrated an increased risk of superficial wound complications (7.1% vs 0.5%, P = .003) and a decreased dislocation rate (2.0% vs 13.1%, P = .002). There was a trend toward increased overall complications in the PA group (OR 1.71, P = .078).ConclusionRevision DAA THA is associated with an increased risk of superficial wound complications, but may impart a decreased dislocation rate.     

Third and fourth generation ceramic-on-ceramic total hip arthroplasty at a minimum of ten years

BackgroundCeramic on Ceramic bearings in Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA) afford a low friction coefficient, low wear rates and extreme hardness. Significant complications include hip squeak, ceramic fracture and poor polyethylene performance in revision procedures due to imbedding of abrasive microscopic ceramic fragments. We report on the results of this bearing at a minimum of 10 years.MethodsA single-centre retrospective review of 449 THAs was performed. Primary outcome measures included aseptic revision and all-cause revision rates at a minimum of 10 years post operatively. Evaluation of functionality was performed with WOMAC and SF-36 scores which were performed pre-operatively and at intervals of 6 months, one year, 2 years, 5 years and 10 years post operatively.ResultsThere was a 6.2% (n = 28) all-cause and 5.3% (n = 24) aseptic revision rate for ceramic on ceramic total hip arthroplasty at minimum of 10 years with a mean time to revision 4.8 years (range 2 months–11.6 years). Notably, there were 2 revisions for ceramic head fracture, one for ceramic liner fracture, 3 for aseptic loosening and 3 revisions for squeaking. Pain of unknown origin was the most common reason for revision. There was an improvement in postoperative WOMAC scores from a mean of 59.8 (range 15–95) pre-operatively to a mean of 15.6 (range 0–78) at 10 years.ConclusionThis study showed good functional outcomes but high revision rates for CoC THA at a minimum of 10 years. Our rates of ceramic fracture were consistent with other studies.     

Revision for Aseptic Loosening of Highly Porous Acetabular Components in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty: An Analysis of 20,993 Total Hip Replacements

BackgroundHighly porous-coated titanium acetabular components have a high coefficient of friction and ultraporous surfaces to enhance bone ingrowth and osseointegration in total hip arthroplasty (THA). There have been concerns with the development of early radiolucent lines and aseptic loosening of highly porous acetabular components. It is unclear whether these concerns relate to a specific implant or the entire class. The aim of this study is to compare the revision rates for aseptic loosening of highly porous acetabular combinations in primary THA using data from a large joint replacement registry.MethodsData were retrieved from the Australian Orthopedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry for the study period September 1999 to December 2019. All primary THA procedures recorded and performed for osteoarthritis using the most common combinations for each highly porous acetabular component with highly cross-linked polyethylene and a 32-mm or 36-mm femoral head were included. The primary outcome measure was revision for aseptic loosening of the acetabular component. Results were adjusted for patient age and gender.ResultsThere were 20,993 primary THA procedures performed for osteoarthritis using a highly porous acetabular component across 6 combinations. Relative to the POLARSTEM/R3 (StikTite), the Exeter V40/Tritanium had a significantly higher risk of revision for aseptic loosening of the acetabular component (hazard ratio 0.21, 95% confidence interval 0.06-0.74, P = .014). There was no difference between any other highly porous acetabular component combination and no late revisions for aseptic loosening.ConclusionHighly porous-coated titanium acetabular components have low rates of aseptic loosening with long-term follow-up. A difference between components may exist.Level of EvidenceLevel III.     

A Minimum Ten Years of Follow-Up of Alumina Head on Delta Liner Total Hip Arthroplasty

Background

In the early days when delta ceramics were developed, there was a period of using delta ceramic liner and alumina ceramic head. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to investigate the clinical and radiological outcomes of total hip arthroplasty using delta ceramic liner on alumina ceramic head after a minimum of 10 years of follow-up and to evaluate problems of early delta ceramic liner.

Acetabular Total Hip Arthroplasty Revision: A Summary of Operative Factors,Outcomes, and Comparison of Approaches

BackgroundRevision total hip arthroplasty (THA) presents a greater risk to patients than primary THA, and surgical approach may impact outcomes. This study aimed to summarize acetabular revisions at our institution and to compare outcomes between direct anterior and posterior revision THA.MethodsA series of 379 acetabular revision THAs performed from January 2010 through August 2022 was retrospectively reviewed. Preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative factors were summarized for all revisions and compared between direct anterior and posterior revision THA.ResultsThe average time to acetabular revision THA was 10 years (range, 0.04 to 44.1), with mechanical failure (36.7%) and metallosis (25.6%) being the most prevalent reasons for revision. No differences in age, body mass index, or sex were noted between groups. Anterior revision patients had a significantly shorter length of stay (2.2 versus 3.2 days, P = .003) and rate of discharge to a skilled nursing facility (7.5 versus 25.2%, P = .008). In the 90-day postoperative period, 9.2% of patients returned to the emergency department (n = 35) and twelve patients (3.2%) experienced a dislocation. There were 13.2% (n = 50) of patients having a rerevision during the follow-up period with a significant difference between anterior and posterior approaches (3.8 versus 14.7%, respectively, P = .049).ConclusionThis study provides some evidence that the anterior approach may be protective against skilled nursing facility discharge and rerevision and contributes to decreased lengths of stay. We recommend surgeons select the surgical approach for revision THA based on clinical preferences and patient factors.     

Is a Higher Number of Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty Revisions Associated With Increased Mortality?

BackgroundIt remains uncertain whether patients who undergo numerous total hip arthroplasty (THA) and/or knee arthroplasty (TKA) revisions exhibit decreased survival. Therefore, we sought to determine if the number of revisions per patient was a mortality predictor.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed 978 consecutive THA and TKA revision patients from a single institution (from January 5, 2015-November 10, 2020). Dates of first-revision or single revision during study period and of latest follow-up or death were collected, and mortality was assessed. Number of revisions per patient and demographics corresponding to first revision or single revision were determined. Kaplan-Meier, univariate, and multivariate Cox-regressions were utilized to determine mortality predictors. The mean follow-up was 893 days (range, 3-2,658).ResultsMortality rates were 5.5% for the entire series, 5.0% among patients who only underwent TKA revision(s), 5.4% for only THA revision(s), and 17.2% for patients who underwent TKA and THA revisions (P = .019). In univariate Cox-regression, number of revisions per patient was not predictive of mortality in any of the groups analyzed. Age, body mass index (BMI), and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) were significant mortality predictors in the entire series. Every 1 year of age increase significantly elevated expected death by 5.6% while per unit increase in BMI decreased the expected death by 6.7%, ASA-3 or ASA-4 patients had a 3.1 -fold increased expected death compared to ASA-1 or ASA-2 patients.ConclusionThe number of revisions a patient underwent did not significantly impact mortality. Increased age and ASA were positively associated with mortality but higher BMI was negatively associated. If health status is appropriate, patients can undergo multiple revisions without risk of decreased survival.     

Higher 2-Year Cumulative Incidence of Mental Health Disorders Following Antibiotic Spacer Placement for Chronic Periprosthetic Joint Infection following Total Joint Arthroplasty

BackgroundThe relationship of chronic periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) treatment on the development and relapse of mood disorders remains largely unreported. This study aims to compare the incidence of different mental health disorders following antibiotic spacer placement for chronic PJI when compared to aseptic revisions and primary procedures.MethodsPatients who underwent antibiotic spacer for septic total hip and knee arthroplasty (PJI THA/TKA) were identified in the PearlDiver Database using Current Procedure Terminology (CPT) codes for hip and knee antibiotic spacers. Patients who underwent aseptic revision and primary-THA/TKA were also identified using CPT codes. The incidences of depressive, anxiety, bipolar, psychotic, and stress disorders were identified within 2 years following the index procedures via Kaplan–Meier Analysis.ResultsThe risk of depressive (hazard ratio (HR): 1.5; P < .001) and stress (HR: 1.5; P < .001) disorders were significantly higher in those who underwent PJI-THA when compared to aseptic revision, with the added risk of bipolar when compared to primary THA. The risk of depressive (HR: 1.6; P < .001), stress (HR: 1.4; P < .001), bipolar (HR: 1.3; P < .001), and psychotic disorders (HR: 1.5; P = .003) were significantly higher in those who underwent PJI-TKA when compared to aseptic revision, with the added risk of anxiety when compared to primary TKA.ConclusionPatients who undergo spacer placement for septic-THA/TKA have a disproportionately higher incidence of mental health disorders within 2 years following surgery when compared those undergoing aseptic revisions and primary procedures. Due to this higher risk, physicians should strongly consider collaborative care with psychiatrists or mental health professionals.Level of EvidenceIII.     

Fate of the Retained Acetabular Component During Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

BackgroundThe aim of this meta-analysis and systematic review is to estimate re-revision rates due to aseptic loosening of retained acetabular components after revision total hip arthroplasty.MethodsPubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched until June 11, 2018. Data were extracted by 2 independent investigators and consensus was reached with the involvement of a third investigator. Rates of re-revision due to aseptic loosening from 6 studies were aggregated using random effects model after a logit transformation and were grouped by study and population level characteristics.ResultsAn assessment of the re-revision rates of retained acetabular components due to aseptic loosening in revision total hip arthroplasty was reported in 6 studies involving 669 cases. The pooled re-revision rate was 12.6% (95% confidence interval 8.4-18.4) with a mean study follow-up of 8.6 years. The rate of re-revision due to aseptic loosening of retained acetabular components was 6.8% (95% confidence interval 3.4-13.3). In the univariate meta-regression analysis, mean age at index revision surgery was significantly associated with the rate of re-revision due to aseptic loosening (R² = 99.98%, P < .0001).ConclusionBased on this exploratory analysis, revision hip procedures with retentions of well-fixed acetabular components generally have a low risk of failure during mid-term to long-term follow-ups.     

Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty for Ceramic Head Fracture : A Long-Term Follow-Up

The results of revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) for ceramic head fracture have generally been disappointing, largely due to third body wear after incomplete synovectomy. We have followed 8 patients who sustained ceramic head fractures and were subsequently revised to a metal-on-polyethylene articulation. There were no revisions for osteolysis or aseptic loosening at a mean follow-up of 10.5 years. The yearly wear rates of each of 5 of these THAs after revision were compared with 6 matched metal-on-polyethylene THAs; there were no significant differences in wear rates. Greater than 10-year survivorship with a metal-on-polyethylene bearing couple is possible after revision THA for a ceramic head fracture if a complete and thorough synovectomy can be performed. Our technique of synovectomy will be described.     

Reduced survival for uncemented compared to cemented total hip arthroplasty after operatively treated acetabular fractures

BackgroundPost traumatic arthritis and avascular necrosis of the femoral head are common complications after operatively treated acetabular fractures. This may cause severe disabilities for the patient, necessitating a total hip arthroplasty. Even though an arthroplasty may provide good symptomatic relief, the long-term results are more uncertain and no consensus exists according to preferred prosthetic designs. With this cohort study, we aimed to investigate the medium to long term arthroplasty survival and clinical results of total hip arthroplasty after operatively treated acetabular fractures.MethodsWe included 52 patients treated with a secondary total hip arthroplasty at a median of 2.4 (0.1–14.1) years after an operatively treated acetabular fracture. The median age was 54 (11–82) years. Cemented arthroplasty was used for 33 patients, 10 patients had an uncemented arthroplasty and 9 patients received a hybrid arthroplasty. Average follow up was 8.0 (SD 5.0) years.ResultsTen-year revision free arthroplasty survival was 79%. Uncemented arthroplasties had a significantly worse 10-year survival of 57%. Arthroplasties performed at a centre without a pelvic fracture service also had a significantly worse 10-years survival of 51%. Cox regression showed similar results with an 8-fold increase in risk of revision for both uncemented arthroplasties and operations performed at a non-pelvic trauma centre.ConclusionTotal hip arthroplasty secondary to an operatively treated acetabular fracture provides good symptomatic relief. These patients are, however, complex cases and are probably best treated at specialist centres with both pelvic trauma surgeons and arthroplasty surgeons proficient in complex revisions present.     

Outcomes of Isolated Head and Liner Exchange Using Large Femoral Heads and Modern Liners in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty

BackgroundPrevious reports on the outcomes of isolated head and liner exchange in revision total hip arthroplasty have found high rates of instability after these surgeries. Most reports have studied constructs using ≤28 mm femoral heads. The purpose of this study was to determine if modern techniques with the use of larger head sizes can improve the rate of instability after head and liner exchange.MethodsWe identified 138 hips in 132 patients who underwent isolated head and liner exchange for polyethylene wear/osteolysis (57%), acute infection (27%), metallosis (13%), or other (2%). All patients underwent revision with either 32 (23%), 36 (62%), or 40 (15%) mm diameter heads. Cross-linked polyethylene was used in all revisions. Lipped and/or offset liners were used in 104 (75%) hips. Average follow-up was 3.5 (1.0-9.1) years. Statistical analyses were performed with significance set at P < .05.ResultsRevision-free survivorship for any cause was 94.6% and for aseptic causes was 98.2% at 5 years. 11 (8%) hips experienced a complication with 7 (5%) hips requiring additional revision surgery. After revision, 4 (3%) hips experienced dislocation, 5 (4%) hips experienced infection, and 1 (1%) hip was revised for trunnionosis. No demographic or surgical factors significantly affected outcomes.ConclusionOur study shows that isolated head and liner exchange using large femoral heads and modern liners provides for better stability than previous reports. The most common complication was infection. We did not identify specific patient, surgical, or implant factors that reduced the risk of instability or other complication.     

Hospital Costs for Unsuccessful Two-Stage Revisions for Periprosthetic Joint Infection

BackgroundAlthough 2-stage exchange arthroplasty is the preferred surgical treatment for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in the United States, little is known about the risk of complications between stages, mortality, and the economic burden of unsuccessful 2-stage procedures.MethodsThe 2015-2019 Medicare 100% inpatient sample was used to identify 2-stage PJI revisions in total hip and knee arthroplasty patients using procedural codes. We used the Fine and Gray sub-distribution adaptation of the conventional Kaplan-Meier method to estimate the probability of completing the second stage of the 2-stage PJI infection treatment, accounting for death as a competing risk. Hospital costs were estimated from the hospital charges using “cost-to-charge” ratios from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.ResultsA total of 5094 total hip arthroplasty and 13,062 total knee arthroplasty patients had an index revision for PJI during the study period. In the first 12 months following the first-stage explantation, the likelihood of completing a second-stage PJI revision was 43.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 41.7-44.5) for hips and 47.9% (95% CI 47.0-48.8) for knees. Following explantation, 1-year patient survival rates for hip and knee patients were 87.4% (95% CI 85.8-88.9) and 91.4% (95% CI 90.6-92.2), respectively. The median additional cost for hospitalizations between stages was $23,582 and $20,965 per patient for hips and knees, respectively. Hospital volume, Northeast or Midwest region, and younger age were associated with reduced PJI costs (P < .05).ConclusionAlthough viewed as the most preferred, the 2-stage revision strategy for PJI had less than a 50% chance of successful completion within the first year, and was associated with high mortality rates and substantial costs for treatment failure.     

What Is the Rerevision Rate After Revising a Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty? Analysis From the AOANJRR

Background

More than 15,000 primary hip resurfacing arthroplasties have been recorded by the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) with 884 primary procedures requiring revision for reasons other than infection, a cumulative percent revision rate at 12 years of 11%. However, few studies have reported the survivorship of these revision procedures.

Questions/purposes

(1) What is the cumulative percent rerevision rate for revision procedures for failed hip resurfacings? (2) Is there a difference in rerevision rate among different types of revision or bearing surfaces?

Methods

The AOANJRR collects data on all primary and revision hip joint arthroplasties performed in Australia and after verification against health department data, checking of unmatched procedures, and subsequent retrieval of unreported procedures is able to obtain an almost complete data set relating to hip arthroplasty in Australia. Revision procedures are linked to the known primary hip arthroplasty. There were 15,360 primary resurfacing hip arthroplasties recorded of which 884 had undergone revision and this was the cohort available to study. The types of revisions were acetabular only, femoral only, or revision of both acetabular and femoral components. With the exception of the acetabular-only revisions, all revisions converted hip resurfacing arthroplasties to conventional (stemmed) total hip arthroplasties (THAs). All initial revisions for infection were excluded. The survivorship of the different types of revisions and that of the different bearing surfaces used were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using Cox proportional hazard models. Cumulative percent revision was calculated by determining the complement of the Kaplan-Meier survivorship function at that time multiplied by 100.

Results

Of the 884 revisions recorded, 102 underwent further revision, a cumulative percent rerevision at 10 years of 26% (95% confidence interval, 19.6–33.5). There was no difference in the rate of rerevision between acetabular revision and combined femoral and acetabular revision (hazard ratio [HR], 1.06 [0.47–2], p = 0.888), femoral revision and combined femoral and acetabular revision (HR, 1.00 [0.65–2], p = 0.987), and acetabular revision and femoral revision (HR, 1.06 [0.47–2], p = 0.893). There was no difference in the rate of rerevision when comparing different bearing surfaces (metal-on-metal versus ceramic-on-ceramic HR, 0.46 [0.16–1.29], p = 0.141; metal-on-metal versus ceramic-on-crosslinked polyethylene HR, 0.51 [0.15–1.76], p = 0.285; metal-on-metal versus metal-on-crosslinked polyethylene HR, 0.62 [0.20–1.89], p = 0.399; and metal-on-metal versus oxinium-on-crosslinked polyethylene HR, 0.53 [0.14–2.05], p = 0.356).

Conclusions

Revision of a primary hip resurfacing arthroplasty is associated with a high risk of rerevision. This study may help surgeons guide their patients about the outcomes in the longer term after the first revision of hip resurfacing arthroplasty.

Level of Evidence

Level III, therapeutic study.     

Revision Risk of Total Hip Arthroplasty With Vitamin E Doped Liners: Results From the Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register

BackgroundVitamin E-doped cross-linked polyethylene (VEPE) liners were introduced in total hip arthroplasty (THA) to reduce wear and risk of aseptic loosening and liner fracture. We report this nationwide population-based study to investigate the safety of VEPE liners for THA compared to cross-linked annealed or remelted polyethylene (XLPE).MethodsWe included THAs from The Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register from January 1, 2008 to June 30, 2019, with uncemented cup, VEPE or XLPE liner, and metal or ceramic head. The outcome was revision due to (1) polyethylene-related endpoints (aseptic loosening, granuloma, osteolysis, or liner fractures) and (2) other endpoints.ResultsA total of 110,803 THAs were assessed for eligibility and 53,842 THAs (46,645 patients) were included in the study: 5069 (9.4%) THAs with a VEPE liner and 48,773 (91.6%) with a XLPE liner. Median observation time was 5.48 (interquartile range 3.80-7.15) years for VEPE and 4.85 (interquartile range 2.68-7.76) for XLPE. VEPE had a lower risk of revision for polyethylene-related endpoints compared to XLPE (hazard ratio [HR] 0.60, 95% confidence interval 0.36-0.98) during complete follow-up. THAs with VEPE liners were associated with increased risk of any revision within the first 3 months (HR 1.62, 1.36-1.94), revision recorded as aseptic loosening within 3 months (HR 4.46, 2.26-8.80), and periprosthetic fracture within 3 months (HR 2.57, 1.98, 3.33).ConclusionVEPE liners had a lower risk of revision due to polyethylene-related endpoints, but a higher risk of all-cause revision within 3 months.     

Synchronous Periprosthetic Joint Infections: High Mortality,Reinfection, and Reoperation

BackgroundSynchronous periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) are a catastrophic complication with potentially high mortality. We aimed to report mortality, risk of reinfection, revision, reoperation, and implant survivorship after synchronous PJIs.MethodsWe identified 34 patients treated for PJI in more than one joint within a single 90-day period from 1990 to 2018. PJIs involved bilateral knee arthroplasty (27), bilateral hip arthroplasty (4), 1 knee arthroplasty and 1 elbow arthroplasty (1), 1 knee arthroplasty and 1 shoulder arthroplasty (1), and bilateral hip and knee arthroplasty (1). Irrigation and debridement with component retention was performed in 23 patients, implant resection in 10 patients, and a combination of irrigation and debridement with component retention and implant resection in 1 patient. A competing risk model was used to analyze implant survivorship, and Kaplan-Meier survival was used for patient mortality. Mean follow-up was 6 years.ResultsMortality was high at 18% at 30 days and 27% at 1 year. The 1-year cumulative incidence of any reinfection was 13% and 27% at 5 years. The 1-year cumulative incidence of any revision or implant removal was 6% and 20% at 5 years. The 1-year cumulative incidence of unplanned reoperation was 25% and 35% at 5 years. Rheumatoid arthritis was associated with increased risk of mortality (HR 7, P < .01), as was liver disease (HR 4, P = .02).ConclusionIn the largest series to date, patients with synchronous PJIs had a high 30-day mortality rate of 18%, and one-fourth underwent unplanned reoperation within the first year.