Roger Bingham

Background: Robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty (RA-TKA) may disproportionately affect revision rates based on a surgeon’s revision profile. This national registry study (1) stratified surgeons by pre–RA-TKA revision rates as low, medium, or high and (2) compared the change in revision rates and modes of failure within each cohort after commencing RA-TKA. Methods: All TKA procedures performed for osteoarthritis and recorded by the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry from September 1999 to December 2023 were screened for eligibility. A total of 178 surgeons were included, performing 85,075 TKAs since commencing RA-TKA. TKA with hinged, constrained or medial pivot bearings, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Scores 4 and 5 were excluded. Surgeons were stratified into quartiles based on their 2-year cumulative-percent-revision (CPR) rates before commencing RA-TKA into low (2-year CPR ≤1%), middle (1%-2.5%), and high revision cohorts (≥2.5%). The primary outcome was CPR with comparisons between time-matched RA-TKA and non-RA-TKA for each surgeon cohort after commencing RA-TKA. Secondary outcomes were changes in failure modes. Cox proportional hazards modelling controlled for age, sex, body mass index, ASA, patellar resurfacing, surgical year, fixation, polyethylene, and bearing type. Results: After commencing RA-TKA, there was no difference in CPR between RA-TKA and non-RA-TKA in low (hazard ratio [HR] 1.27; 95% CI 0.84-1.91; p = 0.26) and middle-revision rate surgeon groups (HR 0.99; 95% CI 0.83-1.19; p = 0.95). High-revision rate surgeons had decreased three-month CPR (HR 0.51; 95% CI 0.34-0.75; p < 0.001) but increased >9-month CPR (HR 2.28; 95% CI 1.74-2.98; p < 0.001). The mean follow-up was 2.4, 2.4 and 2.3 years, respectively, with maximum 7-year follow-up. Failure modes including infection, loosening, and instability did not change within any revision rate cohort after commencing RA-TKA ( p > 0.05). Conclusions: At a grouped cohort level, commencing RA-TKA does not improve revision rates nor change failure modes. Surgeons with higher revision rates before commencing RA-TKA experienced further increases in revision rates. Level of Evidence: Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Background: Many factors, including some related to the patient, implant selection, and the surgeon’s skill and expertise, likely contribute to the risk of THA revision. However, surgeon factors have not been extensively analyzed in national joint replacement registries, and there is limited insight into their potential as a confounding variable for revision outcomes; for example, if surgeons with higher revision rates choose more successful prostheses, would this alone reduce their revision rate? Questions/purposes: This study used Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) data for patients receiving primary THA for a diagnosis of osteoarthritis to answer the following questions: (1) Will the difference in revision rates among surgeons change or disappear when only procedures performed with the best prostheses or prostheses that have been identified as having higher revision rates are considered? (2) Is the benefit associated with using the best-performing prostheses different among surgeons with different revision rates? (3) Do the reasons for revision differ between surgeons with higher rates of revision compared with surgeons with lower rates of revision? Methods: All primary THA procedures performed and recorded in the AOANJRR for osteoarthritis from September 1, 1999, to December 31, 2022, were considered for inclusion. Each THA prosthesis used was categorized per the AOANJRR as superior-performing, middle-performing, or identified as having a higher rate of revision by the AOANJRR benchmarking process. Surgeons who had performed at least 50 procedures and had a recorded 2-year cumulative percent revision (CPR) were included. After applying these restrictions, the study consisted of 302,066 procedures performed by 476 known surgeons. For the primary outcome measure of all-cause revision, we examined the variation in all-cause revision rates across individual surgeons when different classes of devices were used to assess whether differences between surgeons persisted when accounting for prosthesis selection. For the purposes of descriptively comparing reasons for revision between surgeons with higher-than-average or lower-than-average risk of revision, surgeons were classified into quartiles and outcomes compared when these surgeons used the same class of prosthesis. Results: The difference in rates of revision among surgeons remained even after accounting for the effects of the prosthesis used. For any given surgeon, identified prostheses were associated with higher revision rates compared with both superior-performing prostheses (HR 1.73 [95% CI 1.57 to 1.92]; p < 0.01) and medium-performing prostheses (HR 1.31 [95% CI 1.20 to 1.43]; p < 0.01). All surgeons demonstrated a lower revision rate when using a superior-performing prosthesis, but the difference was greatest for surgeons with the highest rates of revision. Surgeons with the lowest rates of revision had a 19-year CPR of 3.9% (95% CI 3.0% to 5.0%) when using a superior-performing prosthesis compared with 5.4% (95% CI 4.0% to 7.3%) for procedures in which an identified prosthesis was used. Surgeons with the highest rates of revision had a 19-year CPR of 10.9% (95% CI 8.6% to 13.8%) when using a superior-performing prosthesis, and this increased to 20.4% (95% CI 18.0% to 23.1%) for procedures in which an identified prosthesis was used. The reasons for revision differ between surgeons, with causes of revision likely preventable and not related to the prosthesis choice being apparent for surgeons with high revision rates. Conclusion: The choice of implant and the surgeon performing the index procedure both affected the risk of revision as well as the reasons for revision. Surgeons could improve the survivorship of the arthroplasties they perform by choosing implants identified by registries as having lower revision rates. Acceptance of the fact that surgeons have different revision rates is needed, and detailed analysis is required to explain why surgeons with high revision rates have increased rates of likely preventable revisions, and outside of prosthesis choice, how revision rates can be lowered. The influence of training, fellowship completion, ongoing education, patient selection, indications for surgery, and factors underlying prosthesis decision-making should be assessed. The surgeon performing THA is an important confounder that should be considered in future registry analyses. Level of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic study.

Background: National joint replacement registries assist surgeons and hospitals with guiding decision making and quality of care. The data points collected are essential to interpret and analyze data and to understand confounding variables and other sources of bias, which can impair retrospective observational research. The aim of this study was to review all national joint replacement registries to assess what data points are recorded, and in what manner, for primary and revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) so that improvements can be made to enhance data collection, interpretation, and analysis. Methods: All national registries were identified through Internet and publication search and contacted to invite participation. Data collection forms for both primary and revision THA and TKA were requested. Data collected were entered into an Excel spreadsheet. Results: The study group for primary and revision THA consisted of 28 national registries, with 26 agreeing to participate. The study group for primary TKA consisted of 27 national registries, with 24 agreeing to participate. Patient identification details were recorded uniformly. Only a minority recorded patient details beyond American Society of Anesthesiologists and body mass index. Most registries did not record surgeon variables: who actually performed or assisted the procedure and their level of training. There was variation in the degree of detail recorded for diagnosis, mostly regarding secondary causes of osteoarthritis and fracture. The details regarding case complexity were limited. Half recorded previous operations, and fewer recorded bone defects. The location of knee arthritis, preoperative limb alignment, and deformities were rarely recorded. Surgical approach and technological adjuncts were routinely collected, but few other details on the surgical technique were recorded. Implant details and fixation were uniformly collected, although a minority recorded specific details, including cement antibiotic or cementing technique. It was uncommon to record whether additional or adjunctive procedures were concurrently performed. Approximately half the registries lacked a revision specific form. The majority recorded reoperations in addition to revision procedures. Patient, surgeon, case, and postoperative details were recorded similar to primary procedures. There was variation in the degree of details recorded for the reasons underlying the revision +/− reoperation, with most recording greater detail for infection and fracture. Many included details on case complexity and bone defects, including the severity, classification, and how the defect was managed. The majority recorded the specific revision procedure that was performed (total or partial), the fixation used, and the components removed or revised. Other specific aspects of fixation including acetabular screws, cone or sleeve use, stems, and augments were less commonly recorded. Conclusion: Substantial data are recorded by all registries, although each one is different. Data solicited lack many patient factors, surgeon variables, case complexity, and surgical techniques. Separate revision forms are not universal, and many registries do not record reoperation procedures, specific causes of revision, and the revision construct. Level of Evidence: Level II, therapeutic study. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Background: When arthroplasty is indicated for a femoral neck fracture (FNF), it is unclear whether total hip arthroplasty (THA) or hemiarthroplasty (HA) is best. This study compares data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry using contemporary surgical options. Methods: Patients from 60 to 85 years old who were treated with arthroplasty for FNF, between September 1999 and December 2019, were included if the femoral stems were cemented. Only THAs with femoral heads of ≥36 mm or dual-mobility articulations were included. Patients who had monoblock HA were excluded. Rates of revision for all aseptic failures and dislocation were compared. Competing risks of revision and death were considered using the cumulative incidence function. Subdistribution hazard ratios (HRs) for revision or death from a Fine-Gray regression model were used to compare THA and HA. Interactions of procedure with age group and sex were considered. Secondary analysis adjusting for body mass index (BMI) and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification was also considered. Results: There were 4,551 THA and 29,714 HA procedures included. The rate of revision for THA was lower for women from 60 to 69 years old (HR = 0.58 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.39 to 0.85]) and from 70 to 74 years old (HR = 0.65 [95% CI, 0.43 to 0.98]) compared with HA. However, women from 80 to 85 years old (HR = 1.56 [95% CI, 1.03 to 2.35]) and men from 75 to 79 years old (HR = 1.61 [95% CI, 1.05 to 2.46]) and 80 to 85 years old (HR = 2.73 [95% CI, 1.89 to 3.95]) had an increased rate of revision when THA was undertaken compared with HA. There was no difference in the rate of revision for dislocation between THA and HA for either sex or age categories. Conclusions: When contemporary surgical options for FNF are used, there is a benefit with respect to revision outcomes for THA in women who are <75 years old and a benefit for HA in women who are ≥80 years old and men who are ≥75 years old. There is no difference in dislocation rates. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Update: This article was updated on August 17, 2022, because of previous errors, which were discovered after the preliminary version of the article was posted online. On page 1462, in the first sentence of the Abstract section entitled “Results,” the phrase that had read “and 36-mm heads had fewer dislocations than 28-mm (HR = 0.33 [95% CI, 0.16 to 0.68]; p = 0.003), but more dislocations than 32-mm heads (HR for >2 weeks = 2.25 [95% CI, 1.13 to 4.49]; p = 0.021)” now reads “and 36-mm heads had fewer dislocations than 28-mm (HR = 0.33 [95% CI, 0.16 to 0.68]; p = 0.003) and 32-mm heads (HR for ≥2 weeks = 0.44 [95% CI, 0.22 to 0.88]; p = 0.021).” On page 1468, in the last sentence of the section entitled “Acetabular Components with a Diameter of <51 mm,” the phrase that had read “and HR for ≥2 weeks = 2.25 [95% CI, 1.13 to 4.49; p = 0.021]) (Fig. 3)” now reads “and HR for ≥2 weeks = 0.44 [95% CI, 0.22 to 0.88; p = 0.021]) (Fig. 3).” Finally, on page 1466, in the upper right corner of Figure 3, under “32mm vs 36mm,” the second line that had read “2Wks+: HR=2.25 (1.13, 4.49), p=0.021” now reads “2Wks+: HR=0.44 (0.22, 0.88), p= 0.021.” Background: The acetabular component diameter can influence the choice of femoral head size in total hip arthroplasty (THA). We compared the rates of revision by femoral head size for different acetabular component sizes. Methods: Data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry were analyzed for patients undergoing primary THA for a diagnosis of osteoarthritis from September 1999 to December 2019. Acetabular components were stratified into quartiles by size: <51 mm, 51 to 53 mm, 54 to 55 mm, and 56 to 66 mm. Femoral head sizes of 28 mm, 32 mm, and 36 mm were compared for each cup size. The primary outcome was the cumulative percent revision (CPR) for all aseptic causes and for dislocation. The results were adjusted for age, sex, femoral fixation, femoral head material, year of surgery, and surgical approach and were stratified by femoral head material. Results: For acetabular components of <51 mm, 32-mm (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.75 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.57 to 0.97]; p = 0.031) and 36-mm femoral heads (HR = 0.58 [95% CI, 0.38 to 0.87]; p = 0.008) had a lower CPR for aseptic causes than 28-mm heads; and 36-mm heads had fewer dislocations than 28-mm (HR = 0.33 [95% CI, 0.16 to 0.68]; p = 0.003), and 32-mm heads (HR for ≥2 weeks = 0.44 [95% CI, 0.22 to 0.88]; p = 0.021). For 51 to 53-mm, 54 to 55-mm, and 56 to 66-mm-diameter acetabular components, there was no difference in the CPR for aseptic causes among head sizes. A femoral head size of 36 mm had fewer dislocations in the first 2 weeks than a 32-mm head for the 51 to 53-mm acetabular components (HR for <2 weeks = 3.79 [95% CI, 1.23 to 11.67]; p = 0.020) and for the entire period for 56 to 66-mm acetabular components (HR = 1.53 [95% CI, 1.05 to 2.23]; p = 0.028). The reasons for revision differed for each femoral head size. There was no difference in the CPR between metal and ceramic heads. Conclusions: There is no clear advantage to any single head size except with acetabular components of <51 mm, in which 32-mm and 36-mm femoral heads had lower rates of aseptic revision. If stability is prioritized, 36-mm femoral heads may be indicated. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Background: Dislocation is one of the most common causes of a re-revision after a revision THA. Dual-mobility constructs and large femoral head bearings (≥ 36 mm) are known options for mitigating this risk. However, it is unknown which of these choices is better for reducing the risk of dislocation and all-cause re-revision surgery. It is also unknown whether there is a difference between dual-mobility constructs and large femoral head bearings according to the size of the acetabular component. Questions/purposes: We used data from a large national registry to ask: In patients undergoing revision THA for aseptic causes after a primary THA performed for osteoarthritis, (1) Does the proportion of re-revision surgery for prosthesis dislocation differ between revision THAs performed with dual-mobility constructs and those performed with large femoral head bearings? (2) Does the proportion of re-revision surgery for all aseptic causes differ between revision THAs performed with dual-mobility constructs and those performed with large femoral head bearings? (3) Is there a difference when the results are stratified by acetabular component size? Methods: Data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) were analyzed for 1295 first-revision THAs for aseptic causes after a primary THA performed for osteoarthritis. The study period was from January 2008—when the first dual-mobility prosthesis was recorded—to December 2019. There were 502 dual-mobility constructs and 793 large femoral head bearings. There was a larger percentage of women in the dual-mobility construct group (67% [334 of 502]) compared with the large femoral head bearing group (51% [402 of 793]), but this was adjusted for in the statistical analysis. Patient ages were similar for the dual-mobility construct group (67 ± 11 years) and the large femoral head group (65 ± 12 years). American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class and BMI distributions were similar. The mean follow-up was shorter for dual-mobility constructs at 2 ± 1.8 years compared with 4 ± 2.9 years for large femoral head bearings. The cumulative percent revision (CPR) was determined for a diagnosis of prosthesis dislocation as well as for all aseptic causes (excluding infection). Procedures using metal-on-metal bearings were excluded. The time to the re-revision was described using Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship, with right censoring for death or database closure at the time of analysis. The unadjusted CPR was estimated each year of the first 5 years for dual-mobility constructs and for each of the first 9 years for large femoral head bearings, with 95% confidence intervals using unadjusted pointwise Greenwood estimates. The apparent shorter follow-up of the dual-mobility construct group relates to the more recent increase in dual-mobility numbers recorded in the registry. The results were adjusted for age, gender, and femoral fixation. Results were subanalyzed for acetabular component sizes < 58 mm and ≥ 58 mm, set a priori on the basis of biomechanical and other registry data. Results: There was no difference in the proportion of re-revision for prosthesis dislocation between dual-mobility constructs and large femoral head bearings (hazard ratio 1.22 [95% CI 0.70 to 2.12]; p = 0.49). At 5 years, the CPR of the re-revision for prosthesis dislocation was 4.0% for dual mobility constructs (95% CI 2.3% to 6.8%) and 4.1% for large femoral head bearings (95% CI 2.7% to 6.1%). There was no difference in the proportion of all aseptic-cause second revisions between dual-mobility constructs and large femoral head bearings (HR 1.02 [95% CI 0.76 to 1.37]; p = 0.89). At 5 years, the CPR of dual-mobility constructs was 17.6% for all aseptic-cause second revision (95% CI 12.6% to 24.3%) and 17.8% for large femoral head bearings (95% CI 14.9% to 21.2%). When stratified by acetabular component sizes less than 58 mm and at least 58 mm, there was no difference in the re-revision CPR for dislocation or for all aseptic causes between dual-mobility constructs and large femoral head bearings. Conclusion: Either dual-mobility constructs or large femoral head bearings can be used in revision THA, regardless of acetabular component size, as they did not differ in terms of re-revision rates for dislocation and all aseptic causes in this registry study. Longer term follow-up is required to assess whether complications develop with either implant or whether a difference in revision rates becomes apparent. Ongoing follow-up and comparison in a registry format would seem the best way to compare long-term complications and revision rates. Future studies should also compare surgeon factors and whether they influence decision-making between prosthesis options and second revision rates. Nested randomized controlled trials in national registries would seem a viable option for future research. Level of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic study.

Background: Long-term implant survivorship in THA and TKA involves a combination of factors related to the patient, the implants used, and the decision-making and technical performance of the surgeon. It is unclear which of these factors is the most important in reducing the proportion of revision surgery. Questions/purposes: We used data from a large national registry to ask: In patients receiving primary THA and TKA for a diagnosis of osteoarthritis, do (1) the reasons for revision and (2) patient factors, the implants used, and the surgeon or surgical factors differ between surgeons performing THA and TKA who have a lower revision rate compared with all other surgeons? Methods: Data were analyzed for all THA and TKA procedures performed for a diagnosis of osteoarthritis from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) from September 1, 1999, when collection began, to December 31, 2018. The AOANJRR obtains data on more than 98% of joint arthroplasties performed in Australia. The 5-year cumulative percent revision (CPR) was identified for all THAs and TKAs performed for a diagnosis of osteoarthritis with 95% confidence intervals (overall CPR); the 5-year CPR with 95% CIs for each surgeon was calculated for THA and TKA separately. For surgeons to be included in the analysis, they had to have performed at least 50 procedures and have a 5-year CPR. The 5-year CPR with 95% CIs for each THA and TKA surgeon was compared with the overall CPR. Two groups were defined: low revision rate surgeons (the upper confidence level for a given surgeon at 5 years is less than 3.84% for THA and 4.32% for TKA), and all other surgeons (any surgeon whose CPR was higher than those thresholds). The thresholds were determined by setting a cutoff at 20% above the upper confidence level for that class. The approach we used to define a low revision rate surgeon was similar to that used by the AOANJRR for determining the better-performing prostheses and is recommended by the International Prosthesis Benchmarking Working Group. By defining the groups in this way, a significant difference between these two groups is created. Determining a reason for this difference is the purpose of presenting the proportions of different factors within each group. The study group for THA included 116 low revision rate surgeons, who performed 88,392 procedures (1619 revised, 10-year CPR 2.7% [95% CI 2.6% to 2.9%]) and 433 other surgeons, who performed 170,094 procedures (6911 revised, 10-year CPR 5.9% [95% CI 5.7% to 6.0%]). The study group for TKA consisted of 144 low revision rate surgeons, who performed 159,961 procedures (2722 revised, 10-year CPR 2.6% [95% CI 2.5% to 2.8%]) and 534 other surgeons, who performed 287,232 procedures (12,617 revised, 10-year CPR 6.4% [95% CI 6.3% to 6.6%]). These groups were defined a priori by their rate of revision, and the purpose of this study was to explore potential reasons for this observed difference. Results: For THA, the difference in overall revision rate between low revision rate surgeons and other surgeons was driven mainly by fewer revisions for dislocation, followed by component loosening and fracture in patients treated by low revision rate surgeons. For TKA, the difference in overall revision rate between low revision rate surgeons and other surgeons was driven mainly by fewer revisions for aseptic loosening, followed by instability and patellofemoral complications in patients treated by low revision rate surgeons. Patient-related factors were generally similar between low revision rate surgeons and other surgeons for both THA and TKA. Regarding THA, there were differences in implant factors, with low revision rate surgeons using fewer types of implants that have been identified as having a higher-than-anticipated rate of revision within the AOANJRR. Low revision rate surgeons used a higher proportion of hybrid fixation, although cementless fixation remained the most common choice. For surgeon factors, low revision rate surgeons were more likely to perform more than 100 THA procedures per year, while other surgeons were more likely to perform fewer than 50 THA procedures per year. In general, the groups of surgeons (low revision rate surgeons and other surgeons) differed less in terms of years of surgical experience than they did in terms of the number of cases they performed each year, although low revision rate surgeons, on average, had more years of experience and performed more cases per year. Regarding TKA, there were more differences in implant factors than with THA, with low revision rate surgeons more frequently performing patellar resurfacing, using an AOANJRR-identified best-performing prosthesis combination (with the lowest rates of revision), using fewer implants that have been identified as having a higher-than-anticipated rate of revision within the AOANJRR, using highly crosslinked polyethylene, and using a higher proportion of cemented fixation compared with other surgeons. For surgeon factors, low revision rate surgeons were more likely to perform more than 100 TKA procedures per year, whereas all other surgeons were more likely to perform fewer than 50 procedures per year. Again, generally, the groups of surgeons (low revision rate surgeons and other surgeons) differed less in terms of years of surgical experience than they did in terms of the number of cases they performed annually, although low revision rate surgeons, on average, had more years of experience and performed more cases per year. Conclusion: THAs and TKAs performed by surgeons with the lowest revision rates in Australia show reductions in all of the leading causes of revision for both THA and TKA, in particular, causes of revision related to the technical performance of these procedures. Patient factors were similar between low revision rate surgeons and all other surgeons for both THA and TKA. Low revision rate THA surgeons were more likely to use cement...

Background: Compared with other total hip arthroplasty (THA) approaches, the anterior approach has an increased rate of revision for femoral-sided complications, and certain stems may increase this risk. The present study aimed to assess the outcome of THA by surgical approach, according to the femoral stem utilized in the procedure. Methods: Data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry were analyzed for patients undergoing primary THA for osteoarthritis via the anterior or posterior approach with use of 1 of 5 of the most common cementless femoral stems from January 2015 to December 2019. The primary outcome measures were the cumulative percent revision (CPR) for all causes and for femoral stem loosening and fracture. The CPR was compared between THAs performed via the anterior and posterior approaches for all stems and for each individual femoral stem, as well as between individual femoral stems for each approach. Results: The study included 48,716 THAs performed with use of cementless stems, of which 22,840 utilized an anterior approach and 25,876 utilized a posterior approach. There was no difference in the all-cause CPR between the anterior and the posterior approach, but the anterior approach had a higher CPR for loosening (hazard ratio [HR], 2.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.48 to 2.69; p < 0.001) and fracture (HR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.34 to 2.35; p < 0.001). There was apparent variation in the CPR across the different cementless stems when an anterior approach was utilized. The Quadra-H (Medacta) had a higher all-cause CPR when compared with the Polarstem (Smith & Nephew; HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.16 to 1.91; p = 0.002) and Corail (DePuy Synthes; HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.70; p = 0.0478). Variation was less apparent with the posterior approach. Conclusions: THAs performed via the anterior approach had higher rates of revision for femoral stem loosening and fracture, with greater variation in outcomes between individual stems. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Background: Dislocation remains a leading cause of revision following primary and revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). The aim of the present study was to compare the rate of second revision THA following a major first revision for the treatment of dislocation using an implant with a standard, large head, dual-mobility, or constrained acetabular liner.Methods: Data were obtained from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry from September 1999 through December 2018. All primary THAs that had been performed for the treatment of osteoarthritis and subsequently revised for dislocation were included. All revision THA prostheses with a standard head (≤32 mm), large head (≥36 mm), dual-mobility, or constrained acetabular liner that were used for the first revision procedure were identified. The primary outcome measures were the cumulative rates of second revisions for all causes and for a subsequent diagnosis of dislocation for the 4 different constructs used in the first revision.Results: A total of 1,275 hips underwent a major first revision because of prosthesis dislocation, with 203 of these hips going on to have a second revision. The rate of all-cause second revision was significantly higher in the standard-head group compared with the constrained-acetabular-liner group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.53 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.01 to 2.30]; p = 0.044). There was no difference in the rates of revision between other articulations. The most common cause of second revision for all implants was dislocation. There were a total of 91 second revisions for a diagnosis of dislocation. Standard heads had a higher rate of second revision compared with constrained acetabular liners (HR, 2.44 [95% CI, 1.30 to 4.60]; p = 0.005), dual-mobility implants (HR, 2.04 [95% CI, 1.03 to 4.01]; p = 0.039), and large heads (HR, 1.80 [95% CI, 1.09, 2.99]; p = 0.022). There was no difference in the rates of second revision between other articulations.Conclusions: Surgeons have a number of options for prostheses when performing a first revision for the treatment of dislocation following a primary THA. The most common cause of a second revision is recurrent dislocation. The use of constrained acetabular liners, dual-mobility liners, and large heads (≥36 mm) are options for reducing subsequent dislocation. Standard head sizes have a higher rate of second revision for further dislocation.Level of Evidence: TherapeuticLevel III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Background: A number of surgical approaches are available for total hip arthroplasty (THA), but there are limited large-volume, multi-surgeon data comparing the rates of early revisions following these approaches. The aim of this study was to compare the rate of revision of primary conventional THA related to surgical approach. Methods: Data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry were analyzed for all patients who had undergone a primary THA for osteoarthritis from January 2015 to December 2018. The primary outcome measure was the cumulative percent revision (CPR) for all causes. Secondary outcome measures were major revision (a revision procedure requiring change of the acetabular and/or femoral component) and revision for specific diagnoses: fracture, component loosening, infection, and dislocation. Age, sex, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, femoral head size, and femoral fixation were assessed as potential confounders. Results: There was a total of 122,345 primary conventional THAs for which the surgical approach was recorded in the registry; 65,791 were posterior, 24,468 were lateral, and 32,086 were anterior. There was no difference in the overall CPR among approaches, but the anterior approach was associated with a higher rate of major revisions. There were differences among the approaches with regard to the types of revision. When adjusted for age, sex, ASA score, BMI, femoral head size, and femoral fixation, the anterior approach was associated with a higher rate of femoral complications—i.e., revision for periprosthetic fracture and femoral loosening. There was a lower rate of revision for infection after the anterior approach compared with the posterior approach in the entire period, and compared with the lateral approach in the first 3 months. The posterior approach was associated with a higher rate of revision for dislocation compared with both the anterior and the lateral approach in all time periods. The anterior approach was associated with a lower rate of revision compared with the lateral approach in the first 6 months only. Conclusions: There was no difference in the overall early CPR among the surgical approaches, but the anterior approach was associated with a higher rate of early major revisions and femoral complications (revisions for periprosthetic fracture and femoral loosening) compared with the posterior and lateral approaches and with a lower rate of dislocation and infection. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.