Search

Background: The medial pivot TKA design was introduced in the 1990s. These are fixed-bearing, medial-conforming implants with virtually no translation in the medial part of the knee, in contrast to the flat lateral part of the insert allowing for translation similar to the native knee during flexion and extension. Most primary TKAs performed in Norway and Australia are cruciate-retaining. All of the medial pivot implants in our study are cruciate-sacrificing but without a post-cam mechanism. The medial pivot implant design was developed to more closely mimic native knee motion, in the hope of improving function, and not primarily as a more constrained knee for difficult cases. In the past 10 to 12 years, a second-generation medial-pivot design has emerged, but there are no larger registry studies on the survival of these implants. Both cruciate-retaining and medial pivot designs are reported in the Australian and Norwegian registries, allowing for large-scale, comparative survivorship studies.Questions/purposes: (1) Is there any difference in survival between the medial pivot design and the three most commonly used cruciate-retaining TKA designs? (2) Is there any difference in survival among the different medial pivot implant designs? (3) What are the main indications for revision of medial pivot TKAs?Methods: Registry data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry and Norwegian Arthroplasty Register from 2005 until the end of 2017 were used to compare the five different brands of medial pivot TKA designs (total primary TKAs assessed: 6310). In Australia, the study group of medial pivot implants represented 9% (6012 of 72,477) of the total number of cemented/hybrid TKAs without patellar resurfacing; 345 had cementless femoral components. In Norway, the study group represented 1% (298 of 47,820) of the total number of TKAs with cemented tibias without patellar resurfacing; all had cemented femoral components. The control group consisted of the three most commonly used cruciate-retaining TKA designs (n = 70,870; Australia n = 54,554; Norway n = 16,316). All TKAs used a fixed-bearing, cemented tibial component and did not involve patella resurfacing. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was assessed to estimate survivorship. We compared the groups by calculating the hazard ratios (HR) using Cox regression adjusted for age, gender and preoperative diagnosis with 95% CI. To answer our third question, we calculated the percentage of each revision indication from the total number of revisions in each group, and used a Cox regression analysis to compare revision causes and HRs. Analyses were performed separately by each registry. Accounting for competing risks (Fine and Gray) did not alter our findings [].Results: After controlling for potential confounding variables such as gender, age and preoperative diagnosis, we found an increased revision risk for the medial pivot compared with cruciate-retaining TKA designs in Australia (HR 1.4 [95% CI 1.2 to 1.7]; p < 0.001), but not in Norway (HR 1.5 [95% CI 0.9 to 2.4]; p = 0.1). Two brands of the medial pivot design reported to the AOANJRR showed an increased risk of revision compared with cruciate-retaining designs: the Advance® II MP (HR 1.7 [95% CI 1.2 to 2.6]; p = 0.004) and the GMK® Sphere (HR 2.0 [95% CI 1.5 to 2.6]; p < 0.001), whereas the MRK (HR 0.7 [95% CI 0.4 to 1.5]; p = 0.4), the Evolution® MP (HR 1.4 [95% CI 1.0 to 1.9]; p = 0.06) and the SAIPH® (HR 0.9 [95% CI 0.5 to 1.5]; p = 0.7) showed no difference. The most common reasons for revision of medial pivot implants in Australia were infection (27%), pain alone (19%), patellar erosion (13%), loosening/lysis (12%); in Norway the primary indications were loosening/lysis (28%), instability (28%), malalignment (11%) and pain alone (11%).Conclusions: The medial pivot TKA design as a group had a higher revision rate than cruciate-retaining fixed-bearing controls in TKA performed without patellar component resurfacing. By brand, the Advance II MP and the GMK Sphere had inferior survivorship, whereas the MRK, the SAIPH and the Evolution MP had no differences in survivorship compared with cruciate-retaining controls. In Australia, TKAs with the medial pivot design without patella resurfacing had a higher rate of revisions for instability, malalignment, and patella erosion. In Norway, there was an increased risk of revision for lysis and loosening compared with the cruciate-retaining design. Several of these implants had short follow-up in this study. Further registry studies with longer follow up are therefore necessary.Level Of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: TKA generally has excellent long-term survivorship. When a new knee system supersedes a previous model, increased survivorship, improved functional performance, or both may be expected, because key areas of design modification are often targeted to address wear, stability, and the patellofemoral articulation. However, not all design changes are beneficial, and to our knowledge, knee arthroplasty has not been systematically evaluated in the context of design changes that occur during the development of new knee arthroplasty systems.Questions/purposes: Using the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) we performed multiple old-to-new comparisons of frequently used contemporary knee implants to ask: (1) does overall prosthesis survivorship free from revision increase when a new knee prosthesis system is introduced to replace a prior prosthesis system? (2) Has survivorship free from revision improved for the revision indications of wear, instability, and patellofemoral articulation issues, where development efforts have been concentrated?Methods: Data from the AOANJRR from September 1999 to December 2017 were used to compare the survivorship of prostheses free from revision at a maximum of 17 years in procedures where a new design model was introduced to replace a prior knee system from the same manufacturer. Only prosthesis systems used in a minimum of 2000 primary TKA procedures for osteoarthritis that had a minimum of 5 years of follow-up were included. Varus-valgus constrained and hinge TKA designs were excluded. Cruciate-retaining, posterior-stabilized, and medial pivot-design knees were considered separately. The new and old prosthesis systems were paired for analysis. Survivorship was calculated with Kaplan Meier estimates and comparisons were performed using the Cox proportional hazards method. Subanalyses according to the three main revision indications were performed, and where possible, analyses were performed based on polyethylene types (highly cross-linked polyethylene and ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene), combined and separated. Revision was defined as a reoperation of a previous knee arthroplasty in which one or more of the components was removed, replaced, or added. There were 323,955 TKA procedures and 11 new prosthesis system designs that were introduced to replace an earlier knee system from the same manufacturer. Of these prosthesis system pairs, six were cruciate-retaining prostheses, four were posterior-stabilized designs, and one was a medial pivot design.Results: Six of the 11 knee system pairs showed improved survivorship with the new design, three were no different, and in two, the newer prosthesis systems had a higher rate of revision than the old one did. When revision for wear was analyzed, five prosthesis systems showed improvement, five were no different, and one had a higher rate of revision than the previous system did. There was no improvement in the rate of revision for instability; seven new prosthesis systems showed no difference from the previous system and four new prosthesis systems had a higher rate of revision than the previous system did. A subanalysis of revision for patellofemoral complications showed improvement in two comparisons, no difference in six, and a higher revision rate in two; one could not be calculated because of an insufficient number of revisions for this reason.Conclusions: It is difficult to predict whether a new system will demonstrate better survival than a previous one, and widespread uptake of a new design before a benefit is shown in robust clinical studies is unwise. Similarly, adoption of a new system for which there is no difference in survivorship from a previous model may be premature because a new device may have associated unknown and unintended consequences. Healthcare policy makers and therapeutic device regulators should similarly be guided by results and seek out peer-reviewed evidence before accepting change to established practice. Surgeons must be aware that implant changes may not translate into better survivorship and must seek compelling evidence of improvement in survival and/or function before changing systems.Level Of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patellofemoral arthroplasty (PFA) is one option for the treatment of isolated patellofemoral osteoarthritis, but there are limited data regarding the procedure and results. Because isolated patellofemoral arthritis is relatively uncommon, available case series generally are small, and even within national registries, sample sizes are limited. Combining data from multiple registries may aid in assessing worldwide PFA usage and survivorship.Questions/purposes: We combined and compared data from multiple large arthroplasty registries worldwide to ask: (1) What proportion of patients undergoing primary knee arthroplasty have PFA? (2) What are the patient and prosthesis characteristics associated with PFA in common practice, as reflected in registries? (3) What is the survivorship free from revision of PFA and what are the reasons for and types of revisions?Methods: Data were provided by eight registries that are members of the International Society of Arthroplasty Registries (ISAR) who agreed to share aggregate data: Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Sweden, Finland, Norway, the Netherlands, and the United States. De-identified data were obtained for PFA performed from either the beginning of year 2000, or the earliest recorded implantation date after that in each individual registry when PFA data collection commenced, up to December 31, 2016. This included patient demographics, implant use, all-cause revision rate (determined by cumulative percent revision [CPR]), and reasons for and type of revision.Results: During the data collection period, 6784 PFAs were performed in the eight countries. PFAs comprised less than 1% of primary knee replacements in all registries. Patient demographics were comparable in all countries. Patients were generally more likely to be women than men, and the mean age ranged from 50 years to 60 years. All registries showed a high rate of revision for PFA. The 5-year CPR for any reason ranged from 8.0% (95% CI 4.5 to 11.5) in Norway to 18.1% (95% CI 15.5 to 20.7) in the Netherlands. The most common reason for revision across all countries was disease progression (42%, 434 of 1034). Most PFAs (83%, 810 of 980) were revised to a TKA.Conclusions: The revision risk of PFA in all registries surveyed was more than three times higher than the reported revision risk of TKA at the same times. The survivorship of PFA is similar to that of the no-longer-used procedure of metal-on-metal conventional hip replacement. Although there may be potential functional benefits from PFA, these findings of consistent and alarmingly high rates of revision should create concern, particularly as this procedure is often used in younger patients.Level Of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Some surgeons contend that unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) can easily be revised to a TKA when revision is called for, whereas others believe that this can be complex and technically demanding. There has been little research regarding the efficacy or rationale of using metal augmentation and tibial stem extensions when revising a UKA to a TKA. QUESTION/PURPOSES: (1) Is the use of stem extensions for the tibial component associated with increased survival when revising a UKA to a TKA? (2) Is the addition of modular augments associated with increased survival compared with stem extensions alone? (3) Is TKA design (minimally stabilized versus posterior-stabilized) or (4) tibial fixation (cemented versus cementless) associated with differences in survivorship?Methods: Data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) were used to analyze implant survival after revision of a UKA to a TKA, comparing results in which tibial components were used with and without modular components. The groups analyzed were TKA without a stem extension, those in which a tibial stem extension was used, and those in which a tibial stem extension was used together with an augment. There were 4438 revisions of UKAs to TKAs available for analysis. The mean duration of followup of patients having the TKA revisions was 5 years (SD, 3.5 years). There were 2901 (65%) procedures in which a tibial stem extension was not used, 870 (20%) procedures with a tibial stem extension, and 667 (15%) with a tibial stem extension and metallic augment. Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship were calculated and hazard ratios (HRs) from Cox proportional hazard models, adjusting for age and sex, were used to compare the rate of revision among groups. The overall 10-year cumulative percent revision (CPR) for UKA revised to a TKA was 16%.Results: At 10 years, the CPR was increased when a stem extension was not used (19%; 95% confidence interval [CI],16.5-20.7 without a stem extension compared with 13%; 95% CI, 9.2-17.0 with a stem extension; entire period HR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.10-1.89; p = 0.007). There was no difference in the 10-year CPR when an augment was used together with a stem extension compared with a stem extension alone (HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.85-1.86; p = 0.251). When minimally stabilized and posterior-stabilized TKAs were compared, there was no difference in survivorship. Minimally stabilized TKA designs without stem extensions showed higher CPR compared with when stem extensions were used (HR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.16-2.70; p = 0.007), whereas posterior-stabilized designs without stem extensions showed higher CPR only when compared with when stem extensions and augments were both used (HR, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.24-3.77; p = 0.006). Cementless fixation of the tibial component resulted in a higher CPR than when cement was used (HR, 1.36; 95% CI 1.08-1.71; p = 0.008).Conclusions: In this registry study, the risk of repeat revision after revision of a UKA to a TKA was lower when a tibial stem extension was used, but no such difference was found with respect to augments. Our study did not account for the degree of bone loss or surgeon preference when considering stems and augments. Further research to establish the degree of bone loss associated with UKA to TKA revision procedures will help clarify these findings.Level Of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Adverse local tissue reactions (ALTRs) around hip arthroplasties are an important reason for failure of metal-on-metal (MoM) hip implants. Little is known about capsular dehiscence patterns as ALTRs decompress from the hip into the surrounding tissue planes; these patterns may also influence the onset and severity of patient symptoms.Questions/purposes: Through a multicenter study approach, we asked: (1) Is ALTR location related to the surgical approach used for arthroplasty in patients who underwent hip arthroplasty (resurfacing or THA) with a single, recalled hip arthroplasty system? (2) Do ALTR severity and location affect patient-reported outcomes in these patients? (3) Is ALTR severity different between patients who received the resurfacing version of this component (Articular Surface Replacement [ASR]) and those who received the THA implant in this system (ASR XL)?Methods: In a multicenter prospective study of patients who had undergone surgery with use of the ASR and ASR XL hip system (DePuy Orthopaedics, Warsaw, IN, USA), 288 patients (333 hips) from two centers had a metal artifact reduction sequence MRI of the hip performed at a mean time of 6 years postsurgery. Procedures included 166 hips (50%) with ASR resurfacing and 167 hips (50%) with ASR XL THA performed between 2004 and 2010. One hundred twenty-nine hips (39%) had been operated on using a direct lateral approach and 204 using a posterior approach (61%). The EQ-5D, Harris hip score, UCLA activity score, and visual analog scale pain score were obtained for each patient. ALTRs were classified using the Anderson ALTR grading system, and the location, synovial thickness, and diameter of the ATLRs were assessed. The relationship between ALTR location and surgical approach as well as for ALTR severity and patient-reported outcomes were evaluated, and logistic regression was used to identify predictors for moderate-to-severe ALTRs.Results: Moderate or severe ALTRs were identified in 79 hips (24%); 41 of these hips had been operated on using the direct lateral approach and 38 using the posterior approach. In patients in whom the lateral approach was used, 83% had an anterior ALTR. Similarly, 71% of patients in the posterior approach group had posterior ALTRs. There were no differences in patient-reported outcome measures between patients with moderate-to-severe ALTRs and those with no ALTR findings on MRI (p > 0.09). Use of ASR XL was an independent risk factor for moderate-to-severe ALTRs (odds ratio, 2.8; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-5.5 p = 0.004) and patients with ASR XL also had a thicker synovium (median ASR XL = 3.6 mm [1.2-10.6 mm], median ASR = 2.6 mm [1.2-10.7 mm], p < 0.001) and larger maximal ALTR diameter (median ASR XL = 47.6 mm [14-109.70 mm], median ASR = 38.4 [17.2-118.0 mm], p = 0.02) than patients treated with ASR.Conclusions: The location of ALTRs can be predicted based on the previous surgical approach to the hip. Patients with ASR XL are more likely to develop moderate-to-severe ALTRs compared with ASR patients. An extensive range of patient-reported outcome measures may not identify all patients with ALTRs further supporting the use of MRI as a screening measure for ALTRs.Level Of Evidence: Level II, therapeutic study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]