Demographics, Indications, and Revision Rates for Radial Head Arthroplasty: Analysis of Data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry.

IF 4.4 1区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS
Narinder Kumar, Belinda J Gabbe, Richard S Page, Sze-Ee Soh, David R J Gill, Dylan Harries, Ilana N Ackerman
{"title":"Demographics, Indications, and Revision Rates for Radial Head Arthroplasty: Analysis of Data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry.","authors":"Narinder Kumar, Belinda J Gabbe, Richard S Page, Sze-Ee Soh, David R J Gill, Dylan Harries, Ilana N Ackerman","doi":"10.2106/JBJS.24.00072","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Population-level data from national arthroplasty registries enable the use and outcomes of arthroplasty procedures to be monitored over time. This study aimed to describe the demographics, indications, and outcomes (up to 15 years) for radial head arthroplasty (RHA) procedures in Australia, as well as the factors associated with an increased likelihood of revision.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Individual-level deidentified data on demographics and surgery characteristics, including revision surgery, were obtained from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry for all primary isolated RHA procedures that had been performed from 2007 to 2021. The probability of prosthesis survival was determined using Kaplan-Meier estimates. Cox proportional hazards models were used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) for revision.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 3,457 primary RHAs were performed during the study period (mean follow-up, 5.6 years; range, 0 to 15 years). The mean age at the time of RHA was 53 years, with female predominance (n = 2,009, 58%). The most common indication for RHA was fracture or dislocation (n = 3,166, 92%), followed by osteoarthritis (n = 232, 7%). The radial head prostheses that were most commonly used were monopolar (n = 3,378, 98%) with a modular design (n = 3,442, 99.6%) and cementless fixation (n = 3,387, 98%). Both metallic and nonmetallic prostheses were used (52% and 48%, respectively). Of the total cohort, 160 revisions (5%) were performed during the 15-year period; most revisions occurred in the first 5 years. The most common revision indication was prosthesis loosening (n = 62, 39%), and 54% of the revisions (n = 87) involved a change of the radial component. In multivariable analysis, primary procedures for osteoarthritis (HR, 1.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01 to 2.70) or \"other\" indications (e.g., inflammatory arthritis, osteonecrosis, or tumor) were revised more frequently (HR, 3.68; 95% CI, 1.14 to 11.91) than procedures for fracture or dislocation. Procedures with nonmetallic prostheses had higher rates of revision (HR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.17 to 2.22) than those with metallic prostheses.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Trauma remained the most prevalent indication for RHA in Australia from 2007 to 2021. Encouragingly, revision rates were low, most notably for RHA that had been performed for fracture or dislocation. The likelihood of revision was highest for RHA procedures performed for osteoarthritis and for an indication other than osteoarthritis or trauma. Nonmetallic prostheses had a higher rate of revision than metallic prostheses.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.</p>","PeriodicalId":15273,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, American Volume","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, American Volume","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.24.00072","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Population-level data from national arthroplasty registries enable the use and outcomes of arthroplasty procedures to be monitored over time. This study aimed to describe the demographics, indications, and outcomes (up to 15 years) for radial head arthroplasty (RHA) procedures in Australia, as well as the factors associated with an increased likelihood of revision.

Methods: Individual-level deidentified data on demographics and surgery characteristics, including revision surgery, were obtained from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry for all primary isolated RHA procedures that had been performed from 2007 to 2021. The probability of prosthesis survival was determined using Kaplan-Meier estimates. Cox proportional hazards models were used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) for revision.

Results: A total of 3,457 primary RHAs were performed during the study period (mean follow-up, 5.6 years; range, 0 to 15 years). The mean age at the time of RHA was 53 years, with female predominance (n = 2,009, 58%). The most common indication for RHA was fracture or dislocation (n = 3,166, 92%), followed by osteoarthritis (n = 232, 7%). The radial head prostheses that were most commonly used were monopolar (n = 3,378, 98%) with a modular design (n = 3,442, 99.6%) and cementless fixation (n = 3,387, 98%). Both metallic and nonmetallic prostheses were used (52% and 48%, respectively). Of the total cohort, 160 revisions (5%) were performed during the 15-year period; most revisions occurred in the first 5 years. The most common revision indication was prosthesis loosening (n = 62, 39%), and 54% of the revisions (n = 87) involved a change of the radial component. In multivariable analysis, primary procedures for osteoarthritis (HR, 1.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01 to 2.70) or "other" indications (e.g., inflammatory arthritis, osteonecrosis, or tumor) were revised more frequently (HR, 3.68; 95% CI, 1.14 to 11.91) than procedures for fracture or dislocation. Procedures with nonmetallic prostheses had higher rates of revision (HR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.17 to 2.22) than those with metallic prostheses.

Conclusions: Trauma remained the most prevalent indication for RHA in Australia from 2007 to 2021. Encouragingly, revision rates were low, most notably for RHA that had been performed for fracture or dislocation. The likelihood of revision was highest for RHA procedures performed for osteoarthritis and for an indication other than osteoarthritis or trauma. Nonmetallic prostheses had a higher rate of revision than metallic prostheses.

Level of evidence: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

桡骨头关节置换术的人口统计学、适应症和翻修率:澳大利亚矫形外科协会全国关节置换登记处数据分析》(Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry)。
背景:通过国家关节成形术登记处提供的人口级数据,可以对关节成形术的使用情况和结果进行长期监测。本研究旨在描述澳大利亚桡骨头关节成形术(RHA)的人口统计学、适应症和结果(长达15年),以及与翻修可能性增加相关的因素:从澳大利亚矫形外科协会全国关节置换登记处获得了2007年至2021年期间进行的所有初次孤立RHA手术的人口统计学和手术特征(包括翻修手术)的个人层面去身份化数据。假体存活概率采用Kaplan-Meier估计值确定。采用Cox比例危险模型计算翻修的危险比(HRs):研究期间共进行了3457例初次RHA(平均随访时间为5.6年;随访时间范围为0至15年)。RHA时的平均年龄为53岁,女性居多(n = 2,009,58%)。桡骨头假体最常见的适应症是骨折或脱位(n = 3,166,92%),其次是骨关节炎(n = 232,7%)。最常用的桡骨头假体是模块化设计的单极假体(3,378 例,98%)(3,442 例,99.6%)和无骨水泥固定假体(3,387 例,98%)。使用金属和非金属假体的比例分别为 52% 和 48%。在 15 年的时间里,共进行了 160 次翻修(5%);大多数翻修发生在前 5 年。最常见的翻修适应症是假体松动(62例,39%),54%的翻修(87例)涉及桡骨组件的更换。在多变量分析中,因骨关节炎(HR,1.65;95% 置信区间[CI],1.01 至 2.70)或 "其他 "适应症(如炎性关节炎、骨坏死或肿瘤)而进行的初次手术的翻修率(HR,3.68;95% 置信区间[CI],1.14 至 11.91)高于因骨折或脱位而进行的手术。与使用金属假体的手术相比,使用非金属假体的手术翻修率更高(HR,1.61;95% CI,1.17 至 2.22):结论:从2007年到2021年,在澳大利亚,创伤仍然是RHA最常见的适应症。令人鼓舞的是,翻修率很低,尤其是因骨折或脱位而进行的RHA。因骨关节炎和骨关节炎或外伤以外的适应症而进行的RHA手术的翻修率最高。非金属假体的翻修率高于金属假体:证据等级:治疗III级。有关证据级别的完整描述,请参阅 "作者须知"。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.90
自引率
7.50%
发文量
660
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery (JBJS) has been the most valued source of information for orthopaedic surgeons and researchers for over 125 years and is the gold standard in peer-reviewed scientific information in the field. A core journal and essential reading for general as well as specialist orthopaedic surgeons worldwide, The Journal publishes evidence-based research to enhance the quality of care for orthopaedic patients. Standards of excellence and high quality are maintained in everything we do, from the science of the content published to the customer service we provide. JBJS is an independent, non-profit journal.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信