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: 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 and purpose -- Given similar functional outcomes with mobile and fixed bearings, a difference in survivorship may favor either. This study investigated the risk of aseptic loosening for the most used subtypes of mobile-bearing rotating-platform knees, in Norway and Australia. Patients and methods -- Primary TKRs reported to the Norwegian and Australian joint registries, between 2003 and 2014, were analyzed with aseptic loosening as primary end-point and all revisions as secondary end-point. We hypothesized that no difference would be found in the rate of revision between rotating-platform and the most used fixed-bearing TKRs, or between keeled and non-keeled tibia. Kaplan-Meier estimates and curves, and Cox regression relative risk estimates adjusted for age, sex, and diagnosis were used for comparison. Results -- The rotating-platform TKRs had an increased risk of revision for aseptic loosening compared with the most used fixed-bearing knees, in Norway (RR = 6, 95% CI 4-8) and Australia (RR = 2.1, 95% CI 1.8-2.5). The risk of aseptic loosening as a reason for revision was highest in Norway compared with Australia (RR = 1.7, 95% CI 1.4-2.0). The keeled tibial component had the same risk of aseptic loosening as the non-keeled tibia (Australia). Fixation method and subtypes of the tibial components had no impact on the risk of aseptic loosening in these mobile-bearing knees. Interpretation -- The rotating-platform TKRs in this study appeared to have a higher risk of revision for aseptic loosening than the most used fixed-bearing TKRs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To compare the lifetime risk of total hip replacement (THR) surgery for osteoarthritis (OA) between countries, and over time.Methods: Data on primary THR procedures performed for OA in 2003 and 2013 were extracted from national arthroplasty registries in Australia, Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden. Life tables and population data were also obtained for each country. Lifetime risk of THR was calculated for 2003 and 2013 using registry, life table, and population data.Results: In 2003, lifetime risk of THR ranged from 8.7% (Denmark) to 15.9% (Norway) for females, and from 6.3% (Denmark) to 8.6% (Finland) for males. With the exception of females in Norway (where lifetime risk started and remained high), lifetime risk of THR increased significantly for both sexes in all countries from 2003 to 2013. In 2013, lifetime risk of THR was as high as 1 in 7 women in Norway, and 1 in 10 men in Finland. Females consistently demonstrated the highest lifetime risk of THR at both time points. Notably, lifetime risk for females in Norway was approximately double the risk for males in 2003 (females 15.9% [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 15.6-16.1], males 6.9% [95% CI 6.7-7.1]), and 2013 (females 16.0% [95% CI 15.8-16.3], males 8.3% [95% CI 8.1-8.5]).Conclusion: Using representative, population-based data, this study found statistically significant increases in the lifetime risk of THR in 5 countries over a 10-year period, and substantial between-sex differences. These multinational risk estimates can inform resource planning for OA service delivery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Purpose: Previous studies have found different outcomes after revision of knee arthroplasties performed after high tibial osteotomy (HTO). We evaluated the risk of revision of total knee arthroplasty with or without previous HTO in a large registry material., Patients and Methods: 31,077 primary TKAs were compared with 1,399 TKAs after HTO, using Kaplan-Meier 10-year survival percentages and adjusted Cox regression analysis., Results: The adjusted survival analyses showed similar survival in the 2 groups. The Kaplan-Meier 10-year survival was 93.8% in the primary TKA group and 92.6% in the TKA-post-HTO group. Adjusted RR was 0.97 (95% CI: 0.77-1.21; p = 0.8)., Interpretation: In this registry-based study, previous high tibial osteotomy did not appear to compromise the results regarding risk of revision after total knee arthroplasty compared to primary knee arthroplasty.

Background: There is increased early postoperative mortality after elective joint replacement surgery. However, the magnitude and duration of the increased mortality are uncertain., Methods: Data on total knee and total hip replacement from the comprehensive national registries in Australia and Norway were assessed. Only patients between fifty and eighty years of age with osteoarthritis were included. Overall, the study included 81,856 patients with a total knee replacement and 106,254 patients with a total hip replacement. Smoothed intensity curves were calculated to show the change in mortality for the early postoperative period, whereas the effects of risk factors were studied with use of the nonparametric additive Aalen model., Results: We found that early postoperative mortality was increased for the first twenty-six postoperative days (95% confidence interval, twenty-two to forty-one days). The excess mortality, compared with a baseline mortality (calculated as the average mortality from Day 100 to Day 200), for these twenty-six days was estimated to be 0.12% (95% confidence interval, 0.11% to 0.14%). The most important risk factors for excessive early postoperative mortality were male sex and high age (more than seventy years of age)., Conclusions: There is an increased, but low, early postoperative mortality following lower extremity joint replacement surgery. The excess mortality persists, but steadily decreases, for approximately the first twenty-six postoperative days.