Septic complications are on the rise and aseptic loosening has decreased in total joint arthroplasty: an updated complication based analysis using worldwide arthroplasty registers.
Arthroplasty
Complication
Register data
Revision
Total hip arthroplasty
Total knee arthroplasty
Journal
Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery
ISSN: 1434-3916
Titre abrégé: Arch Orthop Trauma Surg
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9011043
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
25 May 2024
25 May 2024
Historique:
received:
18
10
2023
accepted:
07
05
2024
medline:
25
5
2024
pubmed:
25
5
2024
entrez:
25
5
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
A decade ago, a comprehensive study was conducted to investigate the reasons for revision surgeries and their respective frequencies in cases of total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) based on a complication-based analysis of joint replacement registries. The aim of the present study was to determine whether the causes and risks of their occurrence have changed over the last ten years and to present an updated analysis. A systematic review of national arthroplasty registries from seven countries examined the causes and rates of revisions of THA and TKA. The study focused on a descriptive analysis that provided an updated overview without statistical significance values. The most common causes for revisions of THA were aseptic loosening (35.1%), deep infection (18.2%), dislocation/instability (15.9%), and periprosthetic fractures (11.4%). The most common causes for revisions of TKA were deep infection (21.6%), aseptic loosening (18.3%), instability (14.1%), and pain (10.9%). The findings of this study revealed significant shifts in the underlying causes of revision surgeries in the last decade. Notably, septic complications emerged as the predominant reason for revision of primary TKA, while they also gained prominence as a cause of failure of THA. Although aseptic loosening remains the primary cause for re-operation of THA, the relative risk has decreased for both THA and TKA.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38795186
doi: 10.1007/s00402-024-05379-2
pii: 10.1007/s00402-024-05379-2
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (2021) National Joint Replacement Registry. Annual Report 2019. Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. In: https://aoanjrr.sahmri.com/annual-reports-2021
Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register (Dansk Hoftealloplastik Register (2021) Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register. In: http://www.dhr.dk
EFORT (2016) EFORT Website for European Arthroplasty Registers, EAR Welcome. http://www.ear.efort.org
Feng X, Gu J, Zhou Y (2022) Primary total hip arthroplasty failure: aseptic loosening remains the most common cause of revision. American Journal of Translational Research
Finnish Arthroplasty Register https://www.thl.fi/endo/report/#index
Koh CK, Zeng I, Ravi S, Zhu M, Vince KG, Young SW (2017) Periprosthetic Joint infection is the Main cause of failure for modern knee arthroplasty: an analysis of 11,134 knees. Clin Orthop Relat Res 475:2194–2201
doi: 10.1007/s11999-017-5396-4
pubmed: 28573549
pmcid: 5539036
Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M (2007) Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89:780–785
doi: 10.2106/00004623-200704000-00012
pubmed: 17403800
Kurtz SM, Ong KL, Schmier J, Zhao K, Mowat F, Lau E (2009) Primary and revision arthroplasty surgery caseloads in the United States from 1990 to 2004. J Arthroplasty 24:195–203
doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2007.11.015
pubmed: 18534428
Kurtz SM, Lau E, Ong K, Zhao K, Kelly M, Bozic KJ (2009) Future young patient demand for primary and revision joint replacement: national projections from 2010 to 2030. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467:2606–2612
doi: 10.1007/s11999-009-0834-6
pubmed: 19360453
pmcid: 2745453
Labek G, Neumann D, Agreiter M, Schuh R, Bohler N (2011) Impact of implant developers on published outcome and reproducibility of cohort-based clinical studies in arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 93 Suppl 3:55–61
doi: 10.2106/JBJS.K.01108
Lewis PL, Robertsson O, Graves SE, Paxton EW, Prentice HA, W-Dahl A (2021) Variation and trends in reasons for knee replacement revision: a multi-registry study of revision burden. Acta Orthop. https://doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2020.1853340
doi: 10.1080/17453674.2020.1853340
pubmed: 33263453
Lubbeke A, Silman AJ, Barea C, Prieto-Alhambra D, Carr AJ (2018) Mapping existing hip and knee replacement registries in Europe. Health Policy 122:548–557
doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2018.03.010
pubmed: 29598886
McNally M, Sousa R, Wouthuyzen-Bakker M, Chen AF, Soriano A, Vogely HC, Clauss M, Higuera CA, Trebše R (2021) The EBJIS definition of periprosthetic joint infection. Bone Joint J 103–B:18–25
doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.103B1.BJJ-2020-1381.R1
pubmed: 33380199
pmcid: 7954183
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement. Open Med 3:123
National Joint Registry for England and Wales (2021) National Joint Registry. 18th Annual Report 2021. National Joint Registry for England and Wales. In:. http://www.njrcentre.org.uk
Nelson CL, Kim J, Lotke PA (2005) Stiffness after total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87(Suppl 1):264–270
pubmed: 16140799
New Zealand National Joint Register (2021) Twenty-three Year Report. In:. http://www.cdhb.govt.nz/njr
Norwegian Arthroplasty Register; Norwegian National Advisory Unit on Arthroplasty and Hip Fractures 2021 Annual Report. In:. http://nrlweb.ihelse.net/eng/default.htm
Parvizi J, Tan TL, Goswami K, Higuera C, Della Valle C, Chen AF, Shohat N (2018) The 2018 definition of Periprosthetic hip and knee infection: an evidence-based and validated Criteria. J Arthroplasty 33:1309–1314e2
doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2018.02.078
pubmed: 29551303
QoLa Quality of Publications regarding the Outcome of Revision Rate after Arthroplasty. Final Report of the QoLA Project. Presented at the EFORT Congress 2011 in Copenhagen. http://www.ear.efort.org/downloads/E-Book_QoLA%20Project_Final%20Report_EFORT%20Copenhagen
Sabah SA, Knight R, Alvand A, Murray DW, Petrou S, Beard DJ, Price AJ (2022) No exponential rise in revision knee replacement surgery over the past 15 years: an analysis from the National Joint Registry. Osteoarthritis and cartilage. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2022.08.016
Sadoghi P, Liebensteiner M, Agreiter M, Leithner A, Böhler N, Labek G (2013) Revision surgery after total joint arthroplasty: a complication-based analysis using Worldwide Arthroplasty registers. J Arthroplasty. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2013.01.012
doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2013.01.012
pubmed: 23602418
Schroer WC, Berend KR, Lombardi AV, Barnes CL, Bolognesi MP, Berend ME, Ritter MA, Nunley RM (2013) Why are total knees failing today? Etiology of total knee revision in 2010 and 2011. J Arthroplast. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2013.04.056
doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2013.04.056
Sharkey PF, Lichstein PM, Shen C, Tokarski AT, Parvizi J (2014) Why are total knee arthroplasties failing today—has anything changed after 10 years? J Arthroplasty. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2013.07.024
doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2013.07.024
pubmed: 25007726
The Swedish Arthroplasty Report (2021) The SAR Annual Report 2021. In:. https://shpr.registercentrum.se/shar-in-english/the-swedish-hip-arthroplasty-register/p/ryouZwaoe
Thiele K, Perka C, Matziolis G, Mayr HO, Sostheim M, Hube R (2015) Current failure mechanisms after knee arthroplasty have changed: polyethylene wear is less common in revision surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am Vol. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.M.01534
doi: 10.2106/JBJS.M.01534
Zhu M, Ravi S, Frampton C, Luey C, Young S (2016) New Zealand Joint Registry data underestimates the rate of prosthetic joint infection. Acta Orthop 87:346–350
doi: 10.3109/17453674.2016.1171639
pubmed: 27348450
pmcid: 4967275