AbstractObjectivesTotal hip replacement (THR) is one of the most successful and cost-effective interventions in orthopaedic surgery. Dislocation is a debilitating complication of THR and managing an unstable THR constitutes a significant clinical challenge. Stability in THR is multifactorial and is influenced by surgical, patient and implant related factors. It is established that larger diameter femoral heads have a wider impingement-free range of movement and an increase in jump distance, both of which are relevant in reducing the risk of dislocation. However, they can generate higher frictional torque which has led to concerns related to increased wear and loosening. Furthermore, the potential for taper corrosion or trunnionosis is also a potential concern with larger femoral heads, particularly those made from cobalt-chrome. These concerns have meant there is hesitancy among surgeons to use larger sized heads. This study presents the comparison of clinical outcomes for different head sizes (28mm, 32mm and 36mm) in primary THR for 10,104 hips in a single centre.MethodsA retrospective study of all consecutive patients who underwent primary THR at our institution between 1st April 2003 and 31st Dec 2019 was undertaken. Institutional approval for this study was obtained. Demographic and surgical data were collected. The primary outcome measures were all-cause revision, revision for dislocation, and all-cause revision excluding dislocation. Continuous descriptive statistics used means, median values, ranges, and 95% confidence intervals where appropriate. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used to estimate time to revision. Cox proportional hazard regression analysis was used to compare revision rates between the femoral head size groups. Adjustments were made for age at surgery, gender, primary diagnosis, ASA score, articulation type, and fixation method.Results10,104 primary THRs were included; median age 68.6 years with 61.5% females. A posterior approach was performed in 71.6%. There were 3,295 hips with 28 mm heads (32.6%), 4,858 (48.1%) with 32 mm heads and 1,951 (19.3%) with 36 mm heads. Overall rate of revision was 1.7% with the lowest rate recorded for the 36mm group (2.7% vs. 1.3% vs. 1.1%). Cox regression analysis showed a decreased risk of all-cause revision for 32mm & 36mm head sizes as compared to 28mm; this was statistically significant for the 32mm group (p = 0.01). Risk of revision for dislocation was significantly reduced in both 32mm (p = 0.03) and 36mm (p = 0.03) head sizes. Analysis of all cause revision excluding dislocation showed no significant differences between head sizes.ConclusionThere was a significantly reduced risk of revision for all causes, but particularly revision for dislocation with larger head sizes (36mm & 32mm vs. 28mm). Concerns regarding increased risk of early revision for aseptic loosening, polyethylene wear or taper corrosion with larger heads appear to be unfounded in this cohort of 10,104 patients with a mean of 6.0-year follow-up.Declaration of Interest(b) declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research reported:I declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research project.

Orthopaedic hip implants have seen significant advances over the years; however, their long-term success depends on multiple factors, such as correct implantation, host acceptability, wear characteristics and, most importantly, fixation between the host bone and implant. The most common reason for revision surgery, aseptic loosening, carries a heavy morbidity and financial cost burden for the patient and health services. Whilst much time has been invested in understanding and optimising implant fixation to the host bone, the importance of early diagnosis of failed osseointegration cannot be understated. This chapter explores the biology behind osseointegration, osteolysis, and the advances made towards enhanced fixation. Signs and symptoms suggesting failed osseointegration and the diagnostic tests currently used to identify aseptic loosening and osteolysis are described. Furthermore, we explore the utility of molecular biomarkers that have the potential to aid early diagnosis and thus prevent catastrophic complications and the need for complex revision surgery.

Sound management decisions are critical to outcomes in revision arthroplasty. Aiming to improve outcomes, revision networks facilitate speciality trained, high volume surgeons, share experience and best practice, contributing to decision making within and away from their base hospital. We have reported the early clinical experience of East Midlands Specialist Orthopaedic Network (EMSON). In this paper we report beneficial clinical effects, both demonstrable and unquantifiable supporting the process. Using the UK HES database of revisions, performed before and after EMSON was established, (April 2011 – March 2018), data from EMSON hospitals were compared to all other hospitals in the same time-period. Primary outcome was re-revision surgery within 1 year. Secondary outcomes were re-revision, complications within first two years and median LOS. 57,621 RTHA and 33,828 RTKA procedures were involved with around 1,485 (2.6%) and 1,028 (3.0%) respectively performed within EMSON. Re-revision THA rates, within 1 year, in EMSON were 7.3% and 6.0% with re-revision knee rates 11.6% and 7.4%, pre- and post-intervention. Re-revision rates in the rest England in the same periods were 7.4% to 6.8% for hips and 11.7% to 9.7% for knees. This constituted a significant improvement in 1-year re-revision rates for EMSON knees. (β = −0.072 (−0.133 to −0.01), p = 0.024). The reduction in hip re-revision did not reach statistical significance. Secondary outcomes showed a significant improvement for 1 and 2-year RTHA complication rates. Re-revision rates for RTKA and complication rates for RTHA improved significantly after the introduction of EMSON. Other outcomes studied also improved to a greater extent in the network hospitals. While anecdotal experience with networks is positive, the challenge in collating data to prove clinic benefit should not be underestimated. Beyond the formal process, additional communication, interaction, and support has immeasurable benefit in both elective and emergency scenarios.

AbstractObjectiveUp to 20% of patients can remain dissatisfied following TKR. A proportion of TKRs will need early revision with aseptic loosening the most common. The ATTUNE TKR was introduced in 2011 as successor to its predicate design The PFC Sigma (DePuy Synthes, Warsaw, In). However, following reports of early failures of the tibial component there have been ongoing concerns of increased loosening rates with the ATTUNE TKR. In 2017 a redesigned tibial baseplate (S+) was introduced, which included cement pockets and an increased surface roughness to improve cement bonding. Given the concerns of early tibial loosening with the ATTUNE knee system, this study aimed to compare revision rates and those specific to aseptic loosening of the ATTUNE implant in comparison to an established predicate as well as other implant designs used in a high-volume arthroplasty centre.MethodsThe Attune TKR was introduced to our unit in December 2011. Prior to this we routinely used a predicate design with an excellent long-term track record (PFC Sigma) which remains in use. In addition, other designs were available and used as per surgeon preference. Using a prospectively maintained database, we identified 10,202 patients who underwent primary cemented TKR at our institution between 01/04/2003–31/03/2022 with a minimum of 1 year follow-up (Mean 8.4years, range 1–20years): 1) 2406 with ATTUNE TKR (of which 557 were S+) 2) 4652 with PFC TKR 3) 3154 with other cemented designs. All implants were cemented using high viscosity cement. The primary outcome measures were all-cause revision, revision for aseptic loosening, and revision for tibial loosening. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Cox regression models were used to compare the primary outcomes between groups. Matched cohorts were selected from the ATTUNE subsets (original and S+) and PFC groups using the nearest neighbor method for radiographic analysis. Radiographs were assessed to compare the presence of radiolucent lines in the Attune S+, standard Attune, and PFC implants.ResultsAt a mean of 8.4 years follow-up, 308 implants underwent revision equating to 3.58 revisions per 1000 implant-years. The lowest risk of revision was noted in the ATTUNE cohort with 2.98 per 1000-implant-years where the PFC and All Other Implant groups were 3.15 and 4.4 respectively. Aseptic loosing was the most common cause for revision across all cemented implants with 76% (65/88) of involving loosening of the tibia. Survival analysis comparing the ATTUNE cohort to the PFC and All Other Cemented Implant cohorts showed no significant differences for: all-cause revision, aseptic loosening, or tibial loosening (p=0.15,0.77,0.47). Radiolucent lines were detected in 4.6%, 5.8%, and 5.0% of the ATTUNE S+, standard ATTUNE, and PFC groups respectively. These differences were not significant.ConclusionThis study represents the largest non-registry review of the original and S+ ATTUNE TKR in comparison to its predicate design as well as other cemented implants. There appears to be no significant increased revision rate for all-cause revision or aseptic loosening. Radiographic analysis also showed no significant difference in peri-implant radiolucency. It appears that concerns of early loosening may be unfounded.Declaration of Interest(a) fully declare any financial or other potential conflict of interest

AbstractIntroductionRevision total knee arthroplasty (RTKA) is a complex procedure with higher rates of re-revision, complications and mortality compared to primary TKA. We report the effects of the establishment of a Revision Arthroplasty Network (The East Midlands Specialist Orthopaedic Network; EMSON).MethodologyThe Revision Arthroplasty Network was established in January 2015 and covered the Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire areas of England. This comprises a collaborative weekly multidisciplinary meeting where upcoming RTKA procedures are discussed, and a plan agreed.Using the Hospital Episode Statistics database, RTKA procedures carried out between 2011 and 2018 from the five EMSON hospitals were compared to all other hospitals in England. Age, sex, and Hospital Frailty Risk scores were used as covariates.The primary outcome was re-revision surgery within 1 year of the index revision. Secondary outcomes were re-revision surgery within two years, any complication within one and two years and median length of stay.Results33,828 RTKA procedures were performed across England; 1,028 (3.0%) were conducted within EMSON. Re-revision rates within 1 year were 11.6% and 7.4% pre- and post-intervention respectively within the network. This compares to a pre-post change from 11.7% to 9.7% for the rest of England. In comparative interrupted time-series analysis, there was a significant immediate improvement in re-revision rates for EMSON hospitals compared to the rest of England at 1 year (p = 0.024) and 2 years (p=0.032).ConclusionRe-revision rates for RTKA improved significantly at one and two years with the introduction of EMSON, when compared to the rest of England.