Aim There has been a significant reduction in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) procedures recorded in Australia. This follows several national joint registry studies documenting high UKA revision rates when compared to total knee arthroplasty (TKA). With the recent introduction of robotically assisted UKA procedures, it is hoped that outcomes improve. This study examines the cumulative revision rate of UKA procedures implanted with a newly introduced robotic system and compares the results to one of the best performing non-robotically assisted UKA prostheses, as well as all other non-robotically assisted UKA procedures. Methods Data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Arthroplasty Registry (AOANJRR) for all UKA procedures performed for osteoarthritis (OA) between 2015 and 2018 were analyzed. Procedures using the Restoris MCK UKA prosthesis implanted using the Mako Robotic-Arm Assisted System were compared to non-robotically assisted Zimmer Unicompartmental High Flex Knee System (ZUK) UKA, a commonly used UKA with previously reported good outcomes and to all other non-robotically assisted UKA procedures using Cox proportional hazard ratios (HRs) and Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship. Results There was no difference in the rate of revision when the Mako-assisted Restoris UKA was compared to the ZUK UKA (zero to nine months: HR 1.14 (95% CI 0.71 to 1.83; p = 0.596) vs nine months and over: HR 0.66 (95% CI 0.42 to 1.02; p = 0.058)). The Mako-assisted Restoris had a significantly lower overall revision rate compared to the other types of non-robotically assisted procedures (HR 0.58 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42 to 0.79); p < 0.001) at three years. Revision for aseptic loosening was lower for the Mako-assisted Restoris compared to all other non-robotically assisted UKA (entire period: HR 0.34 (95% CI 0.17 to 0.65); p = 0.001), but not the ZUK prosthesis. However, revision for infection was significantly higher for the Mako-assisted Restoris compared to the two comparator groups (ZUK: entire period: HR 2.91 (95% CI 1.22 to 6.98; p = 0.016); other non-robotically assisted UKA: zero to three months: HR 5.57 (95% CI 2.17 to 14.31; p < 0.001)). Conclusion This study reports comparable short-term survivorship for the Mako robotically assisted UKA compared to the ZUK UKA and improved survivorship compared to all other non-robotic UKA. These results justify the continued use and investigation of this procedure. However, the higher rate of early revision for infection for robotically assisted UKA requires further investigation. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(3):319–328

Background and purpose — While highly crosslinked polyethylene has shown reduced in vivo wear and lower rates of revision for total hip arthroplasty, there have been few long-term studies on its use in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). We compared the rate of revision of non-crosslinked polyethylene to that of crosslinked polyethylene in patients who underwent TKA for osteoarthritis.Patients and methods — We examined data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry on 302,214 primary TKA procedures with non-crosslinked polyethylene and 83,890 procedures with crosslinked polyethylene, all of which were performed for osteoarthritis. The survivorship of the different polyethylenes was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and was compared using proportional hazard models.Results — The 10-year cumulative revision rate for non-crosslinked polyethylene was 5.8% (95% CI: 5.7–6.0) and for crosslinked polyethylene it was 3.5% (95% CI: 3.2–3.8) (> 6.5-year HR = 2.2 (1.5–3.1); p < 0.001). There was no effect of surgical volume or method of prosthesis fixation on outcome. There were 4 different TKA designs that had a minimum of 2,500 procedures in at least 1 of the polyethylene groups and a follow-up of ≥ 5 years. 2 of these, the NexGen and the Natural Knee II, had a lower rate of revision for crosslinked polyethylene. The Scorpio NRG/Series 7000 and the Triathlon Knee did not show a lower rate of revision for crosslinked polyethylene.Interpretation — There is a lower rate of revision for crosslinked polyethylene in TKA, and this appears to be prosthesis-specific and when it occurs is most evident in patients < 65 years of age. The difference in revision rates was mainly due to revisions because of lysis and loosening.

Aims Displaced femoral neck fractures (FNF) may be treated with partial (hemiarthroplasty, HA) or total hip arthroplasty (THA), with recent recommendations advising that THA be used in community-ambulant patients. This study aims to determine the association between the proportion of FNF treated with THA and year of surgery, day of the week, surgeon practice, and private versus public hospitals, adjusting for known confounders. Patients and Methods Data from 67 620 patients in the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) from 1999 to 2016 inclusive were used to generate unadjusted and adjusted analyses of the associations between patient, time, surgeon and institution factors, and the proportion of FNF treated with THA. Results Overall, THA was used in 23.7% of patients. THA was more frequently used over time, in younger patients, in healthier patients, in cases performed on weekdays (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 1.27; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.14 to 1.41), in private hospitals (adjusted OR 4.34; 95% CI 3.94 to 4.79) and by surgeons whose hip arthroplasty practice has a relatively higher proportion of elective patients (adjusted OR 1.65; 95% CI 1.49 to 1.83). Conclusion Practice variation exists in the proportion of FNF patients treated with THA due to variables other than patient factors. This may reflect variation in resources available and surgeon preference, and uncertainty regarding the relative indication.

Background Patellofemoral replacements (PFRs) have a higher rate of revision than unicompartmental knee arthroplasty or TKA. However, there is little information regarding why PFRs are revised, the components used for these revisions, or the outcome of the revision procedure. Some contend that PFR is a bridging procedure that can easily be revised to a TKA with similar results as a primary TKA; however, others dispute this suggestion. Questions/purposes (1) In the setting of a large national registry, what were the reasons for revision of PFR to TKA and was the level of TKA constraint used in the revision associated with a subsequent risk of rerevision? (2) Is the risk of revision of the TKA used to revise a PFR greater than the risk of revision after a primary TKA and greater than the risk of rerevision after revision TKA? Methods Data were obtained from the Australian Orthopaedic Association Joint Replacement Registry through December 31, 2016, for TKA revision procedures after PFR. Because revisions for infection may be staged procedures resulting in further planned operations, for the revision analyses, these were excluded. There were 3251 PFRs, 482 of which were revised to TKA during the 17-year study period. The risk of

Background This study determined the contributing factors of hospital sector (private versus public) variation in revision rates after elective total hip replacement (THR) for hip fracture, and elective total knee replacement (TKR). Methods Using data from a large national arthroplasty registry, funnel plots for hospitals were generated, displaying the proportion of revised primary procedures. The proportion of outliers for each distribution was defined as the proportion outside the upper 99.7% confidence limit. Survival analyses determined differences between hospital sector revision rates separately for implants with the lowest revision rate, and for all other implants. Multivariate Cox regression determined the role of hospital sector in revision, adjusting for possible confounders. Results For THR performed for osteoarthritis, 17.4% of private and 4.4% of public hospitals were outliers. For TKR performed for osteoarthritis, 19.6% of private and 10.0% of public hospitals were outliers. For THR for fractured neck of femur, 8.1% of private and 0.0% of public hospitals were outliers. Adjusted and unadjusted Kaplan–Meier analyses showed higher THR revision rates in private hospitals for osteoarthritis and fractured neck of femur, but no difference when restricted to the 10 prostheses with the lowest revision rate. The Kaplan–Meier analysis of TKR showed higher revision rates for private hospitals, with the association reversing when restricted to prostheses with the lowest revision rate. Conclusions Considerable variation was seen in the revision rate after THR and TKR between hospital sectors in Australia. The variation was largely due to differences in prosthesis selection.

Background: There remains much international practice variation regarding the choice of a unipolar or bipolar prosthesis design for displaced femoral neck fractures that are treated with hemiarthroplasty. The purpose of the present study was to compare revision rates following primary hemiarthroplasty for femoral neck fracture to determine if the unipolar hemiarthroplasty design increases the risk of revision arthroplasty for all causes. Methods: Instrumental variable analysis was performed with use of data that had been entered into the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry from September 1, 1999, to December 31, 2018. Sixty-two thousand, eight hundred and seventy-five patients with femoral neck fractures that were treated with primary modular unipolar or bipolar hemiarthroplasty procedure were analyzed. Hospital preference for prosthesis design in the 12 months prior to the index procedure was used as an instrument to adjust for unmeasured confounding. The primary outcome was time to first revision for any cause. Secondary analyses were performed on the reason for revision (infection, dislocation, periprosthetic fracture, or acetabular erosion), the use of cement femoral stem fixation, and the type of stem (polished or matte). Results: Modular unipolar hemiarthroplasty was associated with a higher rate of revision at >2.5 years (hazard ratio [HR], 1.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.46 to 2.36; p < 0.001), but there was no difference between the groups before 2.5 years (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.13; p = 0.79). Protective factors for revision included female sex (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.74 to 0.9), use of cemented fixation (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.62 to 0.77), and surgery performed in a public hospital setting (HR 0.79; 95% CI, 0.70 to 0.89). Modular unipolar prostheses had a greater risk of revision for acetabular erosion, particularly in later time periods (HR at ≥5.5 years, 5.10; 95% CI, 2.40 to 10.83; p < 0.001), while being protective against periprosthetic fractures (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.87; p < 0.001) at all time points. There was no difference in terms of the risk of revision for infection, dislocation, or stem type. Conclusions: Bipolar hemiarthroplasty designs resulted in a lower risk of revision than unipolar designs. Unipolar hemiarthroplasties are justified for patients with femoral neck fracture and a shorter life expectancy (≤2.5 years). Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Background Hooded acetabular liners and head sizes $ 32 mm have both shown to have a beneficial effect on the revision rate for dislocation in THA. Experience with noncrosslinked polyethylene (nonXLPE) raised concerns regarding the risk of impingement damage, loosening, and osteolysis with hooded liners; however, the evidence for this in crosslinked polyethylene (XLPE) is inconclusive. The interaction between different femoral head sizes and hooded liners is not well understood, and it is unclear whether hooded XLPE liners have a beneficial effect on overall long-term survivorship. Questions/purposes We analyzed a large national joint registry to ask: (1) Is the use of hooded XLPE liners associated with a reduced revision rate for dislocation compared with nonhooded liners? (2) Is there a difference in the revision rate for aseptic loosening/osteolysis? (3) Is head size associated with any difference in the revision rate between hooded and nonhooded liners? Methods The Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry longitudinally maintains data on all primary and revision joint arthroplasties with nearly 100% capture. We analyzed all conventional primary THAs performed from registry inception in September 1999 until December 31, 2016 in patients with a diagnosis of osteoarthritis who had nonhooded or hooded XLPE bearings in a cementless acetabular shell. The study group included 192,659 THA procedures with XLPE liners, of which 67,904 were nonhooded and 124,755 were hooded. The mean age of patients receiving nonhooded liners was 70 years (range, 11-100 years); 44% were males. This was similar to the patients with hooded liners, who had a mean age of 70 years (range, 16-100 years); 45% were males. The main outcome measure was the cumulative percent revision at 15 years of the THA using Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship. We examined reasons for revision and and performed multivariable analysis to control for the confounding factors of three head size groups (< 32mm, Each author certifies that he or she has no commercial associations (eg consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements etc) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article. All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® neither advocates nor endorses the use of any treatment, drug, or device. Readers are encouraged to always seek additional information, including FDA approval status, of any drug or device before clinical use. Each author certifies that his or her institution approved the human protocol for this investigation and that all investigations were conducted in conformity with ethical principles of research. This work was performed at the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry.

No abstract